Inter Laboratory Variability

of the Marshall Test Method

for Asphalt Concrete

FINAL REPORT
WVDOH RP #137

By
John P. Zaniewski, Ph.D.
Michael Hughes

Harley O. Staggers National Transportation Center

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
West Virginia University
PO Box 6103
Morgantown, WV 26506

Submitted to:

West Virginia Department of Transportation

Division of Highways
And
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration

June 2003
Revised June 2006
NOTICE
The contents of this report reflect the views of the author who is responsible for the facts and
the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official
views or policies of the State or the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not
constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Trade or manufacturer names which may
appear herein are cited only because they are considered essential to the objectives of this
report. The United States Government and the State of West Virginia do not endorse
products or manufacturers. This report is prepared for the West Virginia Department of
Transportation, Division of Highways, in cooperation with the US Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.

i
 Technical Report Documentation Page
1. Report No. 2. Government 3. Recipient's catalog No.
Accociation No.
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date June 2006
Inter Laboratory Variability of the Marshall Test 6. Performing Organization Code
Method for Asphalt Concrete
7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.
John P. Zaniewski, Michael Hughes
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)
Harley O. Staggers National Transportation Center
Department of Civil and Environmental 11. Contract or Grant No.
Engineering
West Virginia University
P.O. Box 6103
Morgantown, WV 26506-6103
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered

West Virginia Division of Highways

1900 Washington St. East 14. Sponsoring Agency Code
Charleston, WV 25305
15. Supplementary Notes
Performed in Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation - Federal Highway
Administration
16. Abstract
Statistical quality control measures, such as used by the West Virginia Division of Highways
(WVDOH), require quantification of the variability of the test methods to set meaningful material
acceptance parameters. The Division currently uses the Marshall method for asphalt concrete mix
design and quality control. The objective of this project was to determine multi-laboratory
precision statements for the Marshall method that the WVDOH can use in developing statistically
based quality acceptance specifications.
An inter-laboratory study was performed in accordance with ASTM standards to evaluate the multi-
laboratory variability of test methods. All WVDOH laboratories, two contractor laboratories and
the Asphalt Technology Laboratory at West Virginia University (WVU) participated in the study.
The experiment included three WVDOH asphalt concrete types. All samples were mixed at the
WVU laboratory and shipped to the laboratories for compaction and testing using the Marshall
method. From the results of these tests, within-laboratory and between laboratory precision
statements were developed for 102mm and 152mm Marshall test specimens.

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement

Marshall Variability, Asphalt mix design
19. Security Classif. (of this 20. Security Classif. (of 21. No. Of Pages 22. Price
report) this page)
Unclassified Unclassified 126
Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized

ii
 Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Problem Statement ....................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Objectives ....................................................................................................................................... 2
1.4 Report Summary ........................................................................................................................... 3
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................................................. 5
2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Single Laboratory Variability....................................................................................................... 6
2.3 Inter-Laboratory Variability ........................................................................................................ 7
2.4 Calibration of Marshall Hammer ............................................................................................... 9
2.5 Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 11
CHAPTER 3 BUCKET MIXER TESTING .................................................................................... 12
3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 12
3.2 Mixer Description ....................................................................................................................... 13
3.3 Mixer Evaluation ......................................................................................................................... 13
3.4 Mixer Capacity ............................................................................................................................. 18
3.5 Temperature Tests ...................................................................................................................... 19
3.6 Conclusion.................................................................................................................................... 21
CHAPTER 4 MIX DESIGN PROCEDURE AND SAMPLE PREPARATION................... 22
4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 22
4.2 Aggregate Preparation ................................................................................................................ 22
4.3 Specimen Fabrication ................................................................................................................. 28
4.4 Specimen Testing ........................................................................................................................ 30
4.4.1 Specific Gravity ................................................................................................................. 30
4.4.2 Stability and Flow ............................................................................................................. 30
4.4.3 Maximum Theoretical Specific Gravity ........................................................................ 31
4.4.4 Voids Analysis ................................................................................................................... 32
4.5 Mix Design Results ..................................................................................................................... 33
4.6 Sample Fabrication ..................................................................................................................... 37
4.7 Specimen Distribution ............................................................................................................... 38
CHAPTER 5 DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ........................................................................ 40
5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 40
5.2 Test for Outliers .......................................................................................................................... 40
5.3 Preliminary Data Analysis ......................................................................................................... 40
5.4 Precision Parameters for All Data ........................................................................................... 56
5.5 Data Analysis and Precision Parameters without District 3 ............................................... 59
5.6 Analysis of Other Studies .......................................................................................................... 65
5.7 Evaluation of Questionaire Information ................................................................................ 66
5.8 Precision Statements................................................................................................................... 66
5.9 Summary of Analysis .................................................................................................................. 70
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................. 71
6.1 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................. 71
6.2 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 72
Appendix A Procedure for Developing Precision Statements ....................................................... 74
Appendix B Data From Previous Studies........................................................................................... 80
Appendix C bucket Mixer Instructions.............................................................................................. 84

iii
Appendix D Mix Design Charts ........................................................................................................... 85
APPENDIX E Laboratory Data ........................................................................................................... 94
APPENDIX F Laboratory Instructions, Questionnaire and Data Sheets ................................ 101
Questionnaire ................................................................................................................................... 103
APPENDIX G Variability Analysis Tables....................................................................................... 107

List of Figures

Figure 3.1. Diagram of Bucket Mixer .................................................................................................. 13

Figure 3.2. Isometric Drawing of Paddle ............................................................................................ 14
Figure 3.3. First Bucket Mixer Configuration .................................................................................... 15
Figure 3.5. Segregation of Aggregates with Mixer Tilted Away from Lock Stops ...................... 17
Figure 4.1. Three Methods for Determining Dense Gradation Line ............................................ 24
Figure 4.2. Gradation of First Wearing 1 Sample.............................................................................. 26
Figure 4.3. Gradation for First Base 2 Sample ................................................................................... 27
Figure 4.4. Base 1 Gradation ................................................................................................................. 27
Figure 4.5. Temperature-viscosity Curve for Asphalt Cement Used in the Research ................ 29
Figure 4.6. Second Gradation Attempt for Wearing 1 ..................................................................... 34
Figure 4.7. Third Gradation Attempt for Wearing 1 (Greer Gradation) ...................................... 34
Figure 4.8. Forth Gradation Attempt for Wearing 1 ........................................................................ 35
Figure 4.9. Gradation for Second Base 2 Mixture (Greer Gradation)........................................... 36
Figure 5.1. Base 1 Rice Specific Gravity Variance versus Laboratory. .......................................... 46
Figure 5.2. Base 2 Rice Specific Gravity Variance versus Laboratory ........................................... 46
Figure 5.3. Wearing 1 Rice Specific Gravity Variance versus Laboratory .................................... 46
Figure 5.4. Base 1 Marshall Stability Variance versus Laboratory .................................................. 47
Figure 5.5. Base 2 Marshall Stability Variance versus Laboratory .................................................. 47
Figure 5.6. Wearing 1 Marshall Stability Variance versus Laboratory ........................................... 47
Figure 5.7. Base 1 Marshall Flow Variance versus Laboratory ....................................................... 48
Figure 5.8. Base 2 Marshall Flow Variance versus Laboratory ....................................................... 48
Figure 5.9. Wearing 1 Marshall Flow Variance versus Laboratory ................................................ 48
Figure 5.10. Base 1 Bulk Specific Gravity Variance versus Laboratory ........................................ 49
Figure 5.11. Base 2 Bulk Specific Gravity Variance versus Laboratory ........................................ 49
Figure 5.12. Wearing 1 Bulk Specific Gravity Variance versus Laboratory ................................. 49
Figure 5.13. Wearing 1 Percent Air Voids Variance versus Laboratory ....................................... 50
Figure 5.14. Base 1 Percent Air Voids Variance versus Laboratory .............................................. 50
Figure 5.15. Base 2 Percent Air Voids Variance versus Laboratory .............................................. 50
Figure 5.16. Chart of Interactions in Maximum Theoretical Specific Gravity ............................ 53
Figure 5.17. Chart of Interactions in Marshall Stability.................................................................... 54
Figure 5.18. Chart of Interactions in Marshall Flow ......................................................................... 54
Figure 5.19. Chart of Interactions in Bulk Specific Gravity ............................................................ 55
Figure 5.20. Chart of Interactions in Percent Air Voids .................................................................. 55
Figure 5.21. Re-heat Temperature versus Base 1 Stability ............................................................... 67
Figure 5.22. Re-heat Temperature versus Wearing 1 Stability ........................................................ 67
Figure 5.23. Plot of Re-heat Temperature versus Base 2 Stability ................................................. 67

iv
Figure D.1. Percent Air Voids Versus Asphalt Content for Base 1 .............................................. 85
Figure D.2. Stability Versus Asphalt Content for Base 1................................................................. 85
Figure D.3. Flow Versus Asphalt Content for Base 1...................................................................... 86
Figure D.4. Unit Weight Versus Asphalt Content for Base 1......................................................... 86
Figure D.5. Percent VMA Versus Asphalt Content for Base 1 ...................................................... 87
Figure D.6 Percent VMA Versus Asphalt Content for Base 1 ....................................................... 87
Figure D.7. Percent Air Voids Versus Asphalt Content for Base 2 .............................................. 88
Figure D.8. Stability Versus Asphalt Content for Base 2................................................................. 88
Figure D.9. Flow Versus Asphalt Content for Base 2...................................................................... 89
Figure D.10. Unit Weight Versus Asphalt Content for Base 2 ...................................................... 89
Figure D.11. Percent VMA Versus Asphalt Content for Base 2 ................................................... 90
Figure D.12. Percent VFA Versus Asphalt Content for Base 2 ..................................................... 90
Figure D.13. Percent Air Voids Versus Asphalt Content for Wearing 1...................................... 91
Figure D.14. Stability Versus Asphalt Content for Wearing 1 ........................................................ 91
Figure D.15. Flow Versus Asphalt Content for Wearing 1 ............................................................. 92
Figure D.16. Unit Weight Versus Asphalt Content for Wearing 1 ................................................ 92
Figure D.17. Percent VMA Versus Asphalt Content for Wearing 1 ............................................. 93
Figure D.18. Percent VFA Versus Asphalt Content for Wearing 1 .............................................. 93

List of Tables
Table 3.1. Temperature at Completion of Mixing for Different Bucket Configurations in
Celsius ........................................................................................................................................... 20
Table 4.1. Specific Gravity of Individual Aggregate Sizes ............................................................... 23
Table 4.2. Superpave Specifications for 37.5 mm Nominal Aggregate Size Mix (Wearing 1)
(Roberts, 96) ................................................................................................................................ 24
Table 4.3. Superpave Specifications for 19 mm Nominal Aggregate Size Mix (Base 2)
(Roberts, 96) ................................................................................................................................ 25
Table 4.4. Superpave Specifications for 37.5 mm Nominal Aggregate Size Mix (Base 1)
(Roberts, 96) ................................................................................................................................ 25
Table 4.5. WVDOH Master Ranges for Base 1, Base 2, and Wearing 1 ...................................... 26
Table 4.6. Gradations Used in Study ................................................................................................... 37
Table 5.1. Base 1 Within-laboratory Averages and Variances ........................................................ 42
Table 5.2. Base 2 Within-laboratory Averages and Variances ........................................................ 43
Table 5.3. Wearing 1 Within-laboratory Averages and Variances .................................................. 44
Table 5.4. Test for High and Low Variability .................................................................................... 45
Table 5.5 Precision of Maximum Theoretical Specific Gravity (all data)....................................... 57
Table 5.6 Precision of Stability (all data) .............................................................................................. 57
Table 5.7. Precision of Flow (all data) ................................................................................................. 58
Table 5.8. Precision of Bulk Specific Gravity (all data) .................................................................... 58
Table 5.9. Precision of Percent Air Voids (all data) .......................................................................... 59
Table 5.10. Test for High and Low Variability without District 3 ................................................. 60
Table 5.11 Precision of Maximum Theoretical Specific Gravity without District 3.................... 61
Table 5.12 Precision of Stability without District 3 ........................................................................... 62
Table 5.13 Precision of Flow without District 3 ................................................................................ 62
Table 5.14 Precision of Bulk Specific Gravity without District 3 ................................................... 63
Table 5.15 Precision of Percent Air Voids without District 3 ......................................................... 63

v
Table 5.16 Percent change in precision statements without District 3 .......................................... 64
Table 5.17. Standard Deviations of Average Laboratory Results from Inter-laboratory Studies66
Table A.1 Approximate Values (Upper 5 percent Level) for the Ratio of the Largest Variance
to the Sum of the Variances ..................................................................................................... 77
Table A.2 Approximate Values (Upper 5 percent Level) for the Ratio of the Highest to
Lowest Variance ......................................................................................................................... 77
Table A.3. Example Calculation of Components of Variance ....................................................... 78
Table B.1. Precision Summary of Study by ASTM (Kanhdal, 96) ................................................. 80
Table B.2. Georgia Laboratory Comparison Study (Siddiqui, 95) ................................................. 81
Table B.3. Utah-Marshall Study, Same Operator, Different Equipment at Various
Laboratories (Siddiqui, 95) ........................................................................................................ 82
Table B.4. Utah-Marshall Study, Different Operator and Equipment at Various Laboratories
(Siddiqui, 95)................................................................................................................................ 82
Table B.5. Canadian Mix Exchange, .................................................................................................... 83
Table E.1. Compacted Base 1 Samples Raw Data ............................................................................ 94
Table E.2. Compacted Base 2 Samples Raw Data ............................................................................ 95
Table E.3. Compacted Wearing 1 Samples Raw Data ..................................................................... 96
Table E.4. Base 1 Maximum Theoretical Specific GravitySamples Raw Data ............................ 97
Table E.5. Base 2 Maximum Theoretical Specific GravitySamples Raw Data ............................ 98
Table E.6. Wearing 1 Maximum Theoretical Specific Gravity Samples Raw Data .................... 99
Table E.7. Questionnaire Results ....................................................................................................... 100
Table G.1. Base 1, Maximum Theoretical Specific Gravity, Within-Laboratory Average and
Variance...................................................................................................................................... 107
Table G.2. Base 2, Maximum Theoretical Specific Gravity, Within-Laboratory Average and
Variance...................................................................................................................................... 107
Table G.3. Wearing 1, Maximum Theoretical Specific Gravity, Within-Laboratory Average
and Variance .............................................................................................................................. 108
Table G.4. Base 1, Stability, Within-Laboratory Average and Variance ..................................... 108
Table G.5. Base 2, Stability, Within-Laboratory Average and Variance ..................................... 109
Table G.6. Wearing 1 Stability, Within-Laboratory Average and Variance................................ 109
Table G.7. Base 1, Flow, Within-Laboratory Average and Variance .......................................... 110
Table G.8. Base 2, Flow, Within-Laboratory Average and Variance .......................................... 110
Table G.9. Wearing 1, Flow, Within-Laboratory Average and Variance .................................... 111
Table G.10. Base 1, Bulk Specific Gravity, Within-Laboratory Average and Variance ........... 111
Table G.11. Base 2, Bulk Specific Gravity, Within-Laboratory Average and Variance ........... 112
Table G.12. Wearing 1, Bulk Specific Gravity, Within-Laboratory Average and Variance .... 112
Table G.13. Base 1, Percent Air Voids, Within-Laboratory Average and Variance ................. 113
Table G.14. Base 2, Percent Air Voids, Within-Laboratory Average and Variance ................. 113
Table G.15. Wearing 1, Percent Air Voids, Within-Laboratory Average and Variance .......... 114
Table G.16. Outlying Percentile for Maximum Theoretical Specific Gravity Specific Gravity115
Table G.17. Outlying Percentile for Marshall Stability ................................................................... 116
Table G.18. Outlying Percentile for Marshall Flow ........................................................................ 117
Table G.19. Outlying Percentile for Bulk Specific Gravity ........................................................... 118
Table G.20. Outlying Percentile for Percent Air Voids ................................................................. 119

vi
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION
In the late 1860s the first bituminous pavements were placed in Washington D.C. These
pavements were a significant improvement over the common earth road surfaces of the day.
However, with continuous growth in traffic, particularly during World War II, the need to
improve pavement quality became an important issue to highway agencies and the Department
of Defense. As a result, mix design methods were developed for improving the quality of
asphalt concrete. One of these methods, developed by Bruce Marshall, has been widely
adopted by state highway agencies, including West Virginia.

The West Virginia Division of Highways, WVDOH, uses statistical quality control methods.
Under these methods, the precision of all test procedures must be known in order to ensure
equitable evaluation of contractors products. Although the Marshall method has been in use
for approximately 50 years, the precision of the method is not quantified in the ASTM
standard test method. Hence, the WVDOH needs to quantify the precision of the Marshall
method as it is implemented in the state. This need defined the primary objective of this
research. In essence, this requires performing a test method precision experiment as described
in ASTM Standard C 802 Standard Practice for Conducting and Inter-laboratory Test
Program to Determine the Precision of Test Methods for Construction Materials. The
standard requires preparing and distributing at least 3 replicate samples of 3 material types to a
minimum of 10 laboratories. Obviously, sample preparation is a significant effort during this
type of experiment.

1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT

Even though the Superpave procedures will eventually replace the Marshall procedure for mix
design and quality control, in the interim, WVDOH will continue to use the Marshall method.
For quality control, the inter-laboratory precision and variance in the Marshall method must be

1
quantified for statistical based quality control methods. In a previous project, single laboratory
precision of the Marshall method was evaluated (Head, 93). The current project expands on
the work of Head to include inter-laboratory precision.

1.3 OBJECTIVES
The objective of this research was to develop precision statements for Marshall parameters.
The Marshall parameters evaluated during this project were stability, flow, air void, maximum
theoretical specific gravity, and bulk specific gravity.

The precision statements must apply to all laboratories working for and with WVDOH,
therefore, all WVDOH district laboratories and the central laboratory participated in the study.
In addition, since contractors have a direct responsibility for quality control, contractors
laboratories were included in the study. The precision statements must be valid for all asphalt
concrete types, so three mix types were included in the research. To ensure the experiment
design and analysis fulfilled these objectives, ASTM standard practices for performing
precision statements were used during the research.

The Marshall method was developed to accommodate mixes with relatively small maximum
size aggregates. This permitted the use of a 102 mm diameter mold, which can accommodate
a 25 mm maximum aggregate size. Recently, in response to heavier traffic loads, highway
agencies have introduced mixes with larger maximum aggregate sizes to improve mix
durability. Consequently, there is a need to increase the Marshall sample size to accommodate
the larger size aggregates. The use of larger sample molds is also accommodated in more
modern mix design methods, such as the Superpave system developed during the Strategic
Highway Research Program. Both the large Marshall mold and the mold used for the
Superpave system require approximately 4,000 g of aggregate as opposed to the 1,200 g sample
needed for the standard Marshall mold.

Increasing the sample size significantly affects laboratory sample preparation. Due to the mass
of material required, it is difficult to prepare samples using traditional methods. In response to
this need, industry has introduced a large capacity mixer for asphalt concrete. Since the

2
objective of this project required preparation of many samples, the large capacity mixer was
evaluated.

1.4 REPORT SUMMARY

This report is organized into six chapters and seven appendices. Following the introduction
chapter is a summary of the literature. Given the fact that the Marshall method was developed
50 years ago and was the standard method for approximately seventy-five percent of the stated
highway agencies, the lack of information on the test method precision seems unusual. The
literature survey found two studies covering single-laboratory precision and two reports on
inter-laboratory precision. The studies indicate the variability of the Marshall method is
relatively high. Others have recognized this fact and studies of methods for reducing the
variability have been conducted. One such study was reviewed to highlight the difficulty in
reducing the variability of the seemingly simple Marshall mix design method.

One aspect of the standard Marshall test method is the small mold size which limits the
maximum aggregate size that can be considered for mix design. To overcome this limitation,
an ASTM test method for using a 152 mm diameter mold was developed. In addition, the
Superpave method uses large sample sizes. Chapter 3 outlines a method for mixing large
samples.

Chapter 4 presents the process used to select the specific aggregate gradations and asphalt
contents for the mixture types used during this research. The types of mixtures were selected
in concert with the project sponsor. Once the mixture types were selected, samples of
aggregate were obtained from Greer Industries. A Marshall mix design was preformed to
determine the optimum asphalt content. However, mixes with the Greer aggregates failed to
meet all the WVDOH Marshal criteria. Therefore the mix designs used by the Greer plant for
DOH projects were used for the research.

The samples were prepared in the WVU Asphalt Technology Laboratory and distributed to
the 10 WVDOH district laboratories, the WVDOH central laboratory, two contractor
laboratories, and the WVU Asphalt Technology Laboratory. The samples were tested using

3
standard Marshall methods adopted by WVDOH. The test results were returned to the
researchers and analyzed as reported in Chapter 5.

Chapter 6 presents the conclusions and recommendations for the research project. The
objective of the project was achieved with the presentation of precision statements, which the
WVDOH can implement. However, the research discovered two issues which should be
evaluated further. First, data from one of the laboratories was discarded as being too variable.
The reasons for this variability should be investigated and the equipment and testing technique
should be modified as needed. Second, when the research project was designed, three material
types were selected as specified by the ASTM standard for developing precision statements.
However, two of the material types are compacted in 102 mm molds and the other in 152 mm
molds. There were significant differences in the variability of test results obtained with
standard and large molds. In essence, the precision statements developed during this research
treated the standard and large molds as separate test methods.

4
 CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 INTRODUCTION
The Marshall mix design method was developed approximately 50 years ago and was adopted
as the standard mix design for the majority of state highway agencies. Standard Marshall test
methods were published by both the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), and
by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
However, these standards lack quantified precision statements.

ASTM published standards for developing precision statements which were extensively used
for this project. These standards are summarized in Appendix A.

ASTM precision statements recognize the difference in precision that can be achieved within a
single laboratory and between multiple laboratories. Two studies were found which examined
the within, or single-laboratory variability. One examined the repeatability of the Marshall
stability test using a single technician but two identical Marshall hammers (Kovac, 62). The
other study examined the single laboratory variability for four asphalt concrete types used by
WVDOH (Head, 93). Two studies were found which evaluated the inter-laboratory variability.
One study was performed specifically to develop precision statements for Marshall stability
tests performed on 152 mm samples (Kandhal, 96). The other study presents a compilation of
inter-laboratory Marshall variability data that were collected, but not published, by several
agencies (Siddiqui, 95).

Each of these studies demonstrated considerable variability in the Marshall test method.
Therefore, although it is not directly related to the current project, information on ways to
reduce variability in the Marshall method was sought. The Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) sponsored a study for calibrating the compaction effort of the Marshall hammer
(Sherton, 94).

5
2.2 SINGLE LABORATORY VARIABILITY
In 1962, Kovac expressed concern that publications in the proceedings of the Association of
Asphalt Paving Technologists, AAPT, indicated the standard deviation of the Marshall
Stability test was in the range of 1980 and 5930 N (Kovac, 62). Kovac preformed an
experiment to quantify the single operator standard deviation. Factors and levels in the
experiment were:

1. Compaction hammers two identical hammers,

2. Sample position the hammers were capable of compacting two samples
simultaneously.
3. Molds four molds were used in the experiment
A single mix design with a 9.5 mm maximum aggregate size and 85/100 penetration grade
binder was used for all samples. A total of 64 samples were prepared over a 4 week period.
The standard deviation for all samples was 304 N, which was considerably less than the
previously unpublished values. Kovac found significant differences in the compactive effort
produced by the two identical hammers. Also, the first sample made each day had the
highest variability. After the variability associated with experimental factors was removed from
the analysis, the resulting error standard deviation for the Marshall stability was 272 N.

The WVDOH sponsored a project at WVU to quantify the single laboratory precision for
Marshall mix design tests for 102 mm and 152 mm samples (Head, 93). Four mix types were
evaluated:

1. Patching and Leveling 2, 12.5 mm max aggregate size, 102 mm mold,

2. Wearing 3, 4.75 mm maximum aggregate size, 102 mm mold,
3. Base 1, 37.5 mm maximum aggregate size, 152 mm mold, and
4. Modified Base 1, 19 mm maximum aggregate size, 152 mm mold.
The gradation for each mix type was established by using the midpoint of the allowable range
for percent passing for each sieve size. The optimum asphalt content was determined in
accordance with provisions contained in the Asphalt Institute Manual MS-2, Pennsylvania
Department of Transportation (PennDOT) Marshall criteria for compacted specimens, and
WVDOH specifications. Ten samples were prepared for each mix type. A sample consisted of

6
the average of three results. The Marshall parameters evaluated in the study were stability,
flow, unit weight, and percent air voids.

The WVU research found the variability of the Marshall parameters was greater for the
152 mm samples than for the 102 mm samples. The mean value for stability, flow, and unit
weight were greater for the 152 mm samples than for the 102 mm samples (Head, 93). The
material types and sample size were confounded in the experiment, i.e., no material type was
tested at both sample sizes. Hence, the difference in the means and variability may be
attributed to either material type or sample size.

2.3 INTER-LABORATORY VARIABILITY

The precision of the Marshall procedure for 152 mm samples was evaluated when ASTM
published a standard test method for preparing and testing this size sample (Kandhal, 96). The
AASHTO Material Reference Laboratory (AMRL) distributed replicate samples to twelve
laboratories. The laboratories were instructed to follow ASTM D5581, Test Method for
Resistance to Flow of Bituminous Mixtures Using Marshall Apparatus (6 inch Diameter
Specimen). The laboratories mixed and compacted samples, at temperatures specified by the
researchers, and then tested for Marshall stability and flow, air voids, and bulk specific gravity.
The laboratories were provided with a sufficient amount of 25 mm maximum size aggregates
and AC-20 to prepare 3 Marshall sampled, butter the mixer, and make samples for
determining the maximum theoretical specific gravity.

The data received from the laboratories were analyzed using ASTM Practice for Preparing
Precision and Bias Statements for Test Methods for Construction Materials (C 670), the
ASTM practice for Conducting an Inter-laboratory Test Program to Determine the Precision
of Test Methods for Construction Materials (C 802), and ASTM Practice for Use of the Terms
Precision and Bias in ASTM Test Methods (E 177) (Kandhal, 96). The parameters of
precision from this study are presented in Table B.1.

Siddiqui, Trethewey, and Anderson studied variables affecting Marshall test results (Siddiqui,
95). The primary objectives of the study were to identify the key equipment-related factors
associated with inconsistencies in test results obtained by using different compaction

7
equipment and to recommend calibration equipment and techniques for Marshall compaction
equipment.

Inter-laboratory variability results from differences in equipment characteristics, and the skill
of the technician. The variability of the Marshall procedures has been a concern since at least
1984 (Lee, 84). However, there are relatively few published studies which quantify the
precision of these procedures.

Siddiqui reported on experts and users opinions on the sources of variability in the Marshall
procedure. A questionnaire was used to capture the opinion of eleven experts concerning the
variables that significantly affect Marshall compaction. Analysis of the questionnaire identified
the rank order of the five most influential variables as:

1. Hammer alignment,
2. Pedestal support,
3. Height of free fall,
4. Hammer weight, and
5. Pedestal construction.
Users were then interviewed relative to the differences in brands of equipment and operator
technique. These users reported significant differences in pedestal construction, shape of the
hammer foot, hammer weight and dimensions of the breaking head used in the stability and
flow tests. In addition, the users identified concerns that experienced technicians were not
following the ASTM standard test procedure (Siddiqui, 95).

The experts and users opinions provide an expectation of high inter-laboratory variability.
This expectation was verified with data collected by highway agencies in Georgia, Utah, and
Canada. These agencies conducted inter-laboratory studies to examine Marshall variability
within their agency. These were unpublished studies prior to being reported by Siddiqui. The
data from these studies are presented in Appendix B. An analysis of these data for the ASTM
precision parameters is presented in Chapter 5.

Qualitative findings from these studies include (Siddiqui, 95):

8
 1. Results from the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) showed
samples prepared with mechanical hammers were consistently different from
samples prepared with manual hammers with respect to density.
2. The GDOT data showed most laboratories could operate within the desired levels
of precision, but some data indicated potential problems with either the equipment
or technician technique.
3. The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) data demonstrated that the
precision of the Marshall method was influenced by operator technique.
4. The Canadian data demonstrated the variability of mechanically compacted
samples was higher than the variability associated with manually compacted
samples.

2.4 CALIBRATION OF MARSHALL HAMMER

After research demonstrated the large variability in the Marshall procedure, especially for the
mechanical compaction hammers, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) sponsored
research on methods to calibrate these hammers (Sherton, 94). Since the WVDOH uses
mechanical Marshall hammers, the FHWA research was reviewed to determine if it was
applicable to the divisions procedures.

Sherton developed equipment to measure the compaction force applied to Marshall samples.
The equipment consisted of a power supply, data acquisition system and an elastic spring-mass
device with an integral force transducer. The basic premise behind the equipment was that the
compaction effort of the hammer could be measured with an elastic spring-mass device
positioned inside a standard Marshall mold. As the hammer impacts the device, the spring is
compressed. The rate of compression and maximum deformation is sent to the data
acquisition system. The force, impulse, and energy are then calculated for each individual
blow.

After the prototype device was developed, tests were performed to evaluate the potential of
reducing variability by calibrating each hammer. This laboratory evaluation program evaluated
conditions that produced scatter in Marshall test results. The topic of comparing different
hammers and standardization was indirectly examined. The main focus was on Marshall

9
equipment related variables such as variation in drop weight, friction, wear, and foundation
compliance.

Five different machine setups were evaluated:

1. New Pine Instruments Marshall compaction hammer,

2. Twenty year old Reinhart Testing Equipment Marshall compaction hammer,
3. The Pine Instruments hammer with the mass increased by 277 g,
4. The Reinhart Testing Equipment hammer with a rubber pad between the mold
and base plate, and
5. Manual Marshall compaction hammer.
Three samples were compacted in each of the five device setups. The samples were
compacted with fifty blows on each side of the sample. The bulk specific gravity, stability,
flow, air voids and height of each sample were determined. The standard deviation of each
parameter was computed from three replicate specimens prepared with each machine setup.

The machines were then calibrated using the calibration device. A standard cumulative
impulse value and cumulative energy value were computed. Calibration consisted of
computing the number of times each machine would have to drop the hammer to achieve
energy and impulse values theoretically computed for 50 blows per side. The calibrated
number of blows are shown in Table 2.1.

Three samples were then compacted in each machine with the impulse and energy modified
blow counts. The mean and standard deviation for the three samples were computed for each
of the Marshall parameters. In almost all cases, the standard deviation of the samples prepared
with the calibrated number of blows was less than the standard deviation for samples prepared
using the standard number of blows. Samples prepared using the number of blows computed
from the impulse calibration procedure had less variability than samples prepared using the
number of blows computed the energy calibration procedure (Sherton, 96).

Sherton claimed that since the standard deviations were reduced, the calibration method was
effective. However, this comparison was not made between hammers. The efficacy of the
calibration method to produce consistent results with different compaction machines was not

10
 Table 2.1. Calibrated Machine Blow Count

Standard Standard Modified Modified Manual

Pine Reinhart Pine Reinhart Hammer
Energy
38 66 41 103 53
Calibration
Impulse
53 56 50 60 43
Calibration

determined during the research. One test compared the bulk specific gravity, stability, flow, air
voids, and height of the specimens compacted to the same impulse and energy levels.
However, these samples were compacted with a rubber pad between the pedestal and the
sample, so the conclusions cannot be applied to standard practices.

The finding that the modified Pine (with extra weight) requires more blows than the standard
Pine to achieve the same total energy is highly questionable. Clearly, increasing the mass of the
falling hammer while maintaining a constant the drop height should increase the compaction
energy and reduce the number of blows required to produce a fixed amount of compaction
energy.

2.5 SUMMARY
Although the Marshall procedure was developed over 50 years ago, there is relatively little
information in the literature to quantify the variability of the test method. Studies have
demonstrated that differences in equipment and operator technique affect variability. The
literature demonstrates that different manufactures equipment produce different results and
may or may not comply with ASTM standards. In addition, experienced technicians may
become complacent and not follow prescribed test methods. Therefore, data on Marshall
variability from the literature while interesting, only provides a benchmark for comparison to
the other studies. However, the available literature is not sufficient for determining Marshall
precision statements for the WVDOH.

11
 CHAPTER 3
BUCKET MIXER TESTING

3.1 INTRODUCTION
In the past, the size and capacity of a laboratory asphalt concrete mixer has been of little
concern due to the small quantities needed. Samples were mixed in a tabletop mechanical
mixer or by hand. These two methods sufficed because the Marshall and the Hveem mix
design method were the two predominant mix design methods. Both procedures use 102 mm
diameter by 63 mm high samples requiring approximately 1200 g of aggregate.

In recent years, new testing procedures have been accepted in the asphalt industry. In 1996,
ASTM introduced a testing procedure for 152 mm diameter Marshall apparatus. The Strategic
Highway Research Program (SHRP) developed a new system for asphalt concrete mix design
using the Superpave Gyratory Compactor. This machine, over the next several years, will
replace the Hveem and Marshall methods. The Superpave Gyratory Compactor uses a
150 mm diameter sample. The samples weigh more than 4500 g. This quantity of material is
difficult to mix with traditional methods. Since AASHTO and ASTM mix design test
standards for Marshall and Superpave only specify that the mixture have a uniform distribution
of asphalt binder, a different style mixer may be introduced.

A few laboratories across the country have started using five-gallon bucket mixers, depicted in
Figure 3.1. The effectiveness of this style mixer was investigated to in this study to determine if
quantities of material needed for 152 mm Marshall and Superpave samples can be mixed
successfully.

12
Figure 3.1. Diagram of Bucket Mixer

3.2 MIXER DESCRIPTION

A Kol Brand five-gallon bucket mixer was purchased from QC Resource, the asphalt
equipment division of Virginia Laboratories Inc. The mixer has a horsepower motor, which
rotates the bucket at a constant rate of 60 RPM. The mixer can be tilted about a plane
perpendicular to the floor, and can be locked at six different positions in 15 increments from
upright to 15 from horizontal. Virginia Laboratories Inc. developed the paddle, Figure 3.2,
included with the mixer, specifically for mixing asphalt concrete.

3.3 MIXER EVALUATION

The first objective in evaluating the mixer was to determine the most effective setup and
procedure for using the mixer. No instructions were included with the mixer. Virginia
Laboratories Inc. was contacted for instructions. The contact explained that the mixer should
be locked at the lowest angle possible without allowing any of the mixture to spill out. The
orientation of the paddle inside the bucket was not described.

13
Figure 3.2. Isometric Drawing of Paddle

Several configurations were tested to determine the paddle orientation that mixed asphalt
concrete most effectively. The first position was to set the paddle along the diameter of the
bucket mixer as shown in Figure 3.3. Heated aggregates for a Base 1 mixture were placed in
the heated metal bucket and asphalt cement was poured into a crater formed in the center of
the rocks. The bucket was placed in the mixer and the hot paddle was bolted onto the paddle
arm. The mixer was turned on and tilted down to a 15 angle as Virginia Laboratories Inc. had
specified. Initially, the mixture turned over, but after a few seconds the mix clumped up
against the paddle while the bucket was spinning freely. Eventually, the torque of the mix
against the end of the paddle caused the paddle to rotate out of position. Different tilt angles
were tried but the asphalt concrete would not mix. It became apparent that there was not
enough friction between the paddle bolt and the paddle arm to hold it in place.

14
Figure 3.3. First Bucket Mixer Configuration

Virginia Laboratories Inc. was contacted about this problem. The company shipped a speed
nut to the laboratory to see if it would hold the paddle in place. The speed nut was easier to
use but the paddle would still rotate. In addition, securing the paddle took too much time,
allowing the mixture to cool.

The decision was made to secure the paddle with the conventional nut to the paddle arm
before heating. The two items could be heated together. The paddle arm could be placed onto
its holding rod, slid down in place and secured. This resolved the problems with the paddle
rotating while mixing and the excessive time required for setting up the mixer.

Several mixes were run with the paddle properly secured. Although the paddle did not move,
the mix clumped up against the paddle rather than mixing freely. A new paddle orientation was
needed. For the next configuration the paddle arm, was oriented parallel to the buckets tilting
plane as shown in Figure 3.4. When the material was placed in the mixer and run, the same
problem occurred. The material would mix briefly then become lodged against the paddle.
Mixes were attempted at every tilting angle with no success. Next, the bucket mixer was tilted
in the opposite direction, away from the lock stops. The material circulated around the bucket
until the mix encountered the paddle blades. The blades scraped the material from the side
and bottom of the bucket and caused the mixture to free-fall. The mixture would fall on itself

15
Figure 3.4. Aggregates Lodged Against Paddle in the Second Configuration

and coat the aggregates with asphalt. The aggregates would continuously spin around in an
elliptical/D-shaped cycle coating aggregates.

Although this seemed to be the most effective way to run the mixer there were other
problems. It was observed that the finer aggregates circulate near the edge of the bucket while
the larger aggregates migrated to the center and never contacted to the paddle blade. This
caused two problems; the large aggregates were not getting completely coated with asphalt and
the aggregates were segregated. Changing the angle at which the bucket was tilted alleviated
most of the segregation. The closer the tilt angle was to vertical the wider the ellipse became.
The closer to the angle came to horizontal the narrower the ellipse became. By rocking the
bucket back and forth, the large aggregates were reintroduced into the mixture. This
procedure improved coating of the large aggregates, but did not completely relieve the
problem.

16
Figure 3.5. Segregation of Aggregates with Mixer Tilted Away from Lock Stops

Different attempts were made to improve coating of the large aggregates. Specifications for
the gyratory compactor require heating the mixture in a shallow pan for a period of two hours
after mixing. This allowed the large aggregates to become completely coated as the heated
asphalt cement flowed to the uncoated surfaces. However, heating after mixing is not part of
the Marshall specifications, so a better mixing method was still needed.

It was observed that upon initial mixing, there was thorough coating of the fine aggregates but
inadequate coating of the largest aggregate. Hence, it was decided to try a two step mixing
process. In the first step, the coarse aggregate and asphalt were placed in the bucket and
mixed for about 10 seconds. Then the fine aggregates were introduced while the mixer was
running and the bucket was locked in the vertical position. The fine aggregates were poured
into the center of the mix, avoiding the bucket side and paddle. It was observed that after
another 20 seconds of mixing, all aggregates were thoroughly coated.

Different separations between large and small aggregates were attempted to see which
separations allowed for the fastest mixing time while still completely coating all aggregates. It
was discovered that for mixtures with a nominal maximum aggregate size of 9.5 mm or
smaller, aggregates retained on 2.36 mm sieves should be mixed first. Aggregates passing the

17
2.36 mm sieve are then introduced and mixed until all aggregates are uniformly coated. For
mixtures with a nominal maximum aggregate size of 12.5 mm or greater, aggregates retained
on a 4.75 mm sieve are mixed first, followed by the smaller aggregates.

An additional problem with the mixer was its inability to scrape the entire bucket. In the center
of the bucket, a 25 mm to 75 mm circle of asphalt cement and fines was never scraped from
the bottom of the bucket. The paddle was long enough but the bottom edge of the paddle
blade did not contact the bottom of the bucket at the center. As the bucket spun, the area of
the bucket not reached by the blade had a thin coating of asphalt and fine material. These
materials had to be scraped with a spoon and reintroduced with the rest of the material after
the mechanical mixing was complete. At the seam where the side of the bucket and the
bottom met there was a three millimeter wide two millimeter deep indent. While the mixer
was running, the end of a metal spatula was placed in this indent to dig out the fines and allow
them to be mixed.

3.4 MIXER CAPACITY

The next phase of the evaluation was to the bucket mixers capacity. In the previous phase of
the testing it was observed that the mixer could provide a homogeneous mixture for 4000 g
samples. It now needed to be seen if the mixer could handle mixes significantly smaller and
larger.

It was decided that the smallest size mixture that would be needed for asphalt concrete mix
design would be for a single Marshall sample, 1200 g. The mixing procedures developed for
the 4000 g samples were used for all of the samples. Both WVDOH Base 2 and Wearing 1
mix designs were evaluated at optimum asphalt content. With the 1200 g samples the paddle
was hardly touched by the material when the bucket was tilted to a steep angle. The material
mixed through centripetal acceleration and gravity, providing a uniform coating of the
aggregates. In mixing the smaller samples, segregation was not a problem.

Next, the ability of the bucket mixer to prepare large batch sizes was evaluated. An 18,000 g
batch was selected this would enable asphalt samples to be quartered into Superpave Gyratory
Compactor specimens of approximately 4500 g.

18
The first samples were run at the optimum asphalt content. The bucket was unable to be tilted
over very far because the mixture was approximately 70 mm from the top of the bucket. The
aggregates turned over very well and the mixer had no problem handling such a large batch.
Through visible inspection it was determined that all of the aggregates were evenly coated.
However, severe segregation was observed. The fine aggregates migrated to the bottom of the
bucket while the larger aggregates remained on top. No method could be seen to alleviate this.
Careful quartering of the batch into the required sample size should mitigate this segregation
problem.

Mixes were evaluated with low asphalt contents. For this particular aggregate gradation no
problems occurred in mixing at one percent below optimum asphalt content. When a mixture
was attempted at 1.5 percent below optimum asphalt content it was observed that not all of
the aggregates were evenly coated with asphalt. The fine aggregates that were introduced into
the mixture after the large aggregates were not being completely coated. The aggregates were
migrating to the bottom of the bucket forcing the coarse aggregates to surface. The large
aggregates that were thoroughly coated with asphalt were not coming in contact with the fine
aggregates at the bottom. Agitating the mixture with a hot spoon did not improve coating.

18000 g batches were run at high asphalt contents. The asphalt cement on the bucket and
aggregates acted as a lubricant. There was not enough friction between the aggregate and the
bucket to cause the mix to turn over. The mix would stop moving. When this occurred the
bucket was rocked back-and-forth vigorously and a hot spoon was used to agitate the stopped
mixture. This reactivated the mixing and good aggregate coating was achieved.

3.5 TEMPERATURE TESTS

Tests were run to see if different bucket setups would affect the temperature retained in a
sample after mixing. Three different five-gallon bucket configurations were evaluated, the
standard bucket, a 16 gauge steel bucket, and the standard bucket with a fiberglass insulated
wrap. Mixtures were run at optimum asphalt content on batch of sizes 18000 g, 4000 g and
1200 g.

19
Table 3.1. Temperature at Completion of Mixing for Different Bucket Configurations
in Celsius

Standard Steel
Sample size Standard Steel 16 Gauge
Bucket
(g) Bucket Steel Bucket
Insulated
1200 151.7-154.4 151.7-154.4 155.6-156.7
4000 154.4-155.6 160-162.8 157.2-160
18000 162.2-162.8 167.2-168.3 162.8-163.3

WVDOH Base 1 gradation was used for the 18000 g and 4000 g samples while WVDOH
Base 2 gradation was used for the 1200 g samples. The buckets and the aggregates were
heated to 170 C. The asphalt cement was heated to 158 C. The samples were mixed using
the procedure developed previously. After the asphalt was thoroughly mixed the asphalt was
formed into a cone in the bucket and a dial thermometer was placed in the center of the cone.
The range of results for the three specimens under each condition is presented in Table 3.1.

It can be seen in Table 3.1 that the 1200 g samples in the 16 gauge steel bucket retained the
heat better than the standard steel bucket, even with the insulation in place. It was
hypothesized that the insulation did not improve temperature retention because the wrap only
went around the sides of the bucket and not the bottom. With a small sample, little asphalt
concrete touched bucket side. Heat was lost through the bottom of the bucket. The 16 gauge
bucket was best for small batches. For medium and large batches there was a significant
difference between the three configurations. The insulated bucket performing the best with
the larger batches. There was a significant amount of contact between the sample and the side
of the bucket. The insulation effectively reduced heat loss.

It should be noted that sample removal from 16 gauge steel bucket was significantly easier
than the other bucket. The bottom of this bucket was welded to the sides as opposed to the
standard bucket, which was crimped together. The crimped seam created a crevice that
retained material. Also, because the sides and bottom of the bucket remained hot, the asphalt
slid out of the bucket without sticking. With the standard bucket, even when insulated, the
asphalt stuck to the bottom and sides of the bucket. This was especially true with the 1200 g

20
samples. This is significant when preparing samples for the Marshall test method where the
sample goes directly from the mixer to the compaction mold.

3.6 CONCLUSION
Overall, the five-gallon bucket mixer performed extremely well at mixing asphalt. An effective
mixer configuration and procedure was developed for creating a well coated homogeneous
mixture. Sample sizes ranging from 1200 g to 18,000 g can be effectively mixed. Large
samples at low asphalt contents pose a problem in mixing and should be avoided. If heat loss
is critical either fiberglass insulating blanket or a high gauge steel bucket is recommended. If
individual Marshall specimens are going to be made a 16 gauge steel bucket is beneficial for
consistent sample preparation. A recommended bucket mixer operating procedure is
presented in Appendix C.

21
 CHAPTER 4
MIX DESIGN PROCEDURE AND SAMPLE PREPARATION

4.1 INTRODUCTION
Three different WVDOH mixes were used in assessing the precision and repeatability of the
Marshall mix design method. The three mixes selected for the testing were WVDOT Wearing
1, Base 2 and Base 1. These mixes were selected because of their frequent use by the
WVDOH. The statistical evaluation is most meaningful when performed at the optimum
asphalt content. This chapter describes the procedures used to determine the optimum asphalt
content for each mix type.

4.2 AGGREGATE PREPARATION

All aggregates used for testing in this project were crushed limestone donated by Greer
Limestone in Sabraton, WV. The aggregates were sieved into the following sizes: 37.5 mm,
25 mm, 19 mm, 12.5 mm, 9.5 mm, 4.75 mm, 2.35 mm, 1.18 mm, 0.60 mm, 0.15 mm, and
0.075 mm. Once the aggregates were separated, the specific gravity of each sieve size was
determined in accordance with ASTM C128 and ASTM 127 for fine and coarse aggregates,
respectively (Table 4.1).

The Federal Highway Administration recommends using a 0.45 power gradation chart to find
the best gradation for a mix. Three methods are currently recognized in practice (Roberts, 96):

Method A: Draw a straight line from the origin to the maximum aggregate size.

Method B: Draw a straight line from the origin to the nominal maximum aggregate
size.

Method C: Draw a straight line from the origin to the percentage point for the
largest sieve that retains material.

22
Table 4.1. Specific Gravity of Individual Aggregate Sizes

Type Aggregate Sieve Size Bulk Specific Gravity Apparent Specific Gravity
37.5 2.696 2.721
25 2.695 2.722
19 2.701 2.730
Coarse aggregate
12.5 2.691 2.729
9.5 2.695 2.724
4.75 2.691 2.718
2.36 2.658 2.825
1.18 2.664 2.882
Fine aggregate 0.300 2.504 2.818
0.075 2.327 2.619
Pan 2.568

Each of the three methods is demonstrated in Figure 4.1 for the Wearing 1 gradation. Method
A was chosen for each gradation. This line nearly fit the center of the WVDOH
specifications.

The first attempt at finding an acceptable gradation for each mix type followed the method A
line as closely as possible, while still staying within Superpave (Tables 4.2 to 4.4) and WVDOH
(Table 4.5) specifications. The gradation deviates from the maximum density line near
1.18 mm to avoid the restricted zone set forth by Superpave specifications (Figures 4.2 to 4.4).

Once the gradation for each mix design was chosen the specific gravity for the aggregate blend
was computed using the equation:

P1 P 2 ... Pn
G (4.1)
P1 P 2 Pn
...
G1 G 2 Gn

Where,
G = average specific gravity
G1, G2, , Gn = specific gravity values for fraction 1, 2, n; and
P1, P2, Pn = weight percentages of fraction 1, 2, n

23
Figure 4.1. Three Methods for Determining Dense Gradation Line

Table 4.2. Superpave Specifications for 37.5 mm Nominal Aggregate Size Mix
(Wearing 1) (Roberts, 96)

Sieve Control Points Restricted Zone

Size Boundary
(mm) Lower Upper Lower Upper
12.5 100.0 100.0 - -
9.5 90.0 100.0 - -
4.75 - 90.0 - -
2.36 32.0 67.0 47.2 47.2
1.18 - - 31.6 37.6
0.6 - - 23.5 27.5
0.3 - - 18.7 18.7
0.15 - - - -
0.075 2.0 10.0 - -

24
Table 4.3. Superpave Specifications for 19 mm Nominal Aggregate Size Mix (Base 2)
(Roberts, 96)

Sieve Control Points Restricted Zone

Size Boundary
(mm) Lower Upper Lower Upper
25 100.0 100.0 - -
19 90.0 100.0 - -
12.5 - 90.0 - -
9.5 - - - -
4.75 - - - -
2.36 23.0 49.0 34.6 34.6
1.18 - - 22.3 28.3
0.6 - - 16.7 20.7
0.3 - - 13.7 13.7
0.15 - - - -
0.075 2.0 8.0 - -

Table 4.4. Superpave Specifications for 37.5 mm Nominal Aggregate Size Mix (Base 1)
(Roberts, 96)

Sieve Control Points Restricted Zone

Size Boundary
(mm) Lower Upper Lower Upper
50 100.0 100.0 - -
37.5 90.0 100.0 - -
25 - 90.0 - -
9.5 - - - -
4.75 - - 34.7 34.7
2.36 15.0 41.0 23.3 27.3
1.18 - - 15.5 21.5
0.6 - - 11.7 15.7
0.3 - - 10.0 10.0
0.15 - - - -
0.075 0.0 6.0 - -

25
Table 4.5. WVDOH Master Ranges for Base 1, Base 2, and Wearing 1

Sieve Base 1 Base 2 Wearing 1

Size
(mm) Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper
50 100 - - - - -
37.5 80 100 - - - -
25 - - 100 - - -
19 50 80 85 100 - -
12.5 - - - - 100 -
9.5 35 65 60 80 85 100
4.75 25 55 35 65 50 70
2.36 - - 20 50 30 50
1.18 10 35 - - 20 40
0.6 - - - - - -
0.3 4.0 20.0 4 20 5 20
0.15 - - - - - -
0.075 0 8 1 8 1 8

Figure 4.2. Gradation of First Wearing 1 Sample

26
Figure 4.3. Gradation for First Base 2 Sample

Figure 4.4. Base 1 Gradation

27
4.3 SPECIMEN FABRICATION
Once each aggregate gradation was selected, the optimum asphalt content for each mix type
was determined using the Marshall method and the Asphalt Institute criteria (Roberts, 96).
The Asphalt Institute criteria requires averaging the asphalt content at maximum stability,
maximum density, and mid point of specified air void range (typically 4 percent) from plots of
stability, flow, air voids, and VMA versus asphalt content. The properties of the mix at this
asphalt content are then compared to mixture acceptance criteria.

Marshall testing for this project conformed to ASTM D 1559, for 102 mm samples and ASTM
D 5581 for 152 mm samples. ASTM D 1559 was followed for the Base 2 and Wearing 1
mixes and ASTM D 5581 was followed for the Base 1 mix.

For the 102 mm diameter Marshall samples WVDOH personnel recommended that
approximately 1200 g of hot mix asphalt be used to achieve the desired 63.5 mm high samples.
It was determined through trial and error that 1150 g of aggregates produced 63.5 mm sample
heights. Samples heights changed slightly from the varying asphalt cement content but not
enough to require changing the aggregate quantity. For the 152 mm samples, 3950 g of
aggregate were used in the mix to achieve the target 95.25 mm sample height.

The asphalt cement used in all testing was performance grade PG64-22 produced by Ashland
Petroleum Company. Greer Limestone, Sabraton, WV, donated the asphalt cement. The
proper mixing temperature and compaction temperatures were determined from a temperature
viscosity chart obtained from Ashland Petroleum Company. ASTM D 1559 specifies a
viscosity during mixing of 170 20 cSt. and a viscosity of 280 30 cSt. for compaction. This
corresponds to 153 C to 159 C and 142 C to147 C for asphalt cement used in this project
(Figure 4.5). The asphalt cement was heated to 158 C for mixing.

The aggregates were heated in an oven to 170 C as were the mixing tools, bucket, and mixing
paddle. When items were heated to their proper temperatures, the asphalt cement and
aggregate were mixed in accordance with the methods stated in the previous chapter. Each
day the first batch in the bucket mixer was used to butter the bucket and paddle and was

28
Figure 4.5. Temperature-viscosity Curve for Asphalt Cement Used in the Research

discarded. Once the aggregates were thoroughly coated, the mixture was re-heated in the oven
an hour. The molds and tools were heated to 170 C. The material was placed in the proper
size mold, and spade along the inner edge of the mold 15 times and 10 times in the middle of
the sample. For the 152 mm mold, the material was added in two lifts and the spading was
applied to each lift.

The specimen was then compacted. For the 102 mm molds, the samples were compacted
with a standard hammer. The hammer was mechanically lifted and dropped 75 times. The
specimen was turned over and another 75 blows were applied. For the 152 mm samples, 112
blows were applied to each side with the 10.2 kg hammer. Once the samples were compacted
they were set in front of a fan to cool. When cool to the touch, the sample was extracted from
the mold and allowed to cool to room temperature.

29
Mixes were made at five asphalt contents for each mix type; one at the estimated optimum
asphalt content, at 0.5 percent above and 0.5 percent below the estimated optimum asphalt
content, and at 1.0 percent above and 1.0 percent below the estimated optimum asphalt
content. The Greer Asphalt plant was contacted to obtain an estimate of the optimum asphalt
content. For Base 1, Base 2 and Wearing 1 the recommended asphalt contents were 3.9, 4.6,
and 5.5 percent, respectively. For the trial mix design the, for Base 1, Base, 2 and Wearing 1
the estimated optimum asphalt contents were 3.5, 4.5, and 5.5 percent, respectively.

4.4 SPECIMEN TESTING

4.4.1 Specific Gravity
The bulk specific gravity of the specimen was determined in accordance with ASTM D 2726.
The specimen was cooled to room temperature and weighed. The specimen was hung from a
scale and immersed in a water bath at 25 1 C for three to five minutes. The weight of the
specimen in water was then recorded. The sample was removed from the water bath, surface
dried with a towel and weighed again. The bulk specific gravity, Gmb, was determined as:

A
Gmb (4.2)
B C

Where:
A = Dry weight of specimen, grams
B = Surface Dried weight of specimen, grams
C = Weight of specimen in water, grams

The unit weight of the specimen was calculated by multiplying the bulk specific gravity by the
unit weight of water. The averages of the three specimens were the values recorded for unit
weight and bulk specific gravity.

4.4.2 Stability and Flow

Once the bulk specific gravity was determined, the heights of the samples were measured.
Following the height measurement the 102 mm specimens were immersed in a water bath at
60 C for 35 5 minutes while the 152 mm specimens were immersed for 45 5 minutes. A

30
specimen was removed from the water bath and quickly placed in the Marshall loading head
and then into a Pine Instrument Company brand Marshall stability apparatus. The Marshall
apparatus deformed the specimen at a constant rate of 50.8 mm per minute. The apparatus
automatically plotted load versus specimen deformation. Stability was identified as the
maximum load sustained by the sample. Flow was the deformation at maximum load. The
stability values were then adjusted with respect to sample height using the equations:

B
A (4.3)
0.0252C - 0.6016

E
D (4.4)
0.0174 * F - 0.6594

Where :
A= Adjusted 102 mm Sample Stability
B= 102 mm Sample Stability
C= Sample Height
D= Adjusted 152 mm Sample Stability
E= 152 mm Sample Stability
F= Sample Height

These functions were developed by regression analysis of the correction factors given in
ASTM D 1559 and ASTM D 5581. It was verified that these equations produce the exact
values given in the tables to two decimal places.

4.4.3 Maximum Theoretical Specific Gravity

The maximum theoretical specific gravity of each mixture was determined in accordance with
ASTM D 2041. After the sample was properly mixed, it was spread on a table and allowed to
cool. The clumps of fine aggregate materials were then broken into particles inch in
diameter or smaller. Following separation of the coated fine and coarse aggregate particles, the
sample was weighed and then placed into a pycnometer and submerged in water at a
temperature of 25 1 C. The sample was subjected to a vacuum of 30 mmHg for 15 minutes
while the pycnometer was agitated on a vibrating table. The pycnometer was then filled

31
completely with water and the pycnometer and contents were weighed. The maximum
theoretical specific gravity, Gmm, was calculated as:

A
Gmm (4.5)
A B C

Where:
A = Weight of Dry Sample, grams
B = Weight of pycnometer completely filled with water, grams
C = Weight of pycnometer filled with water and sample, grams

4.4.4 Voids Analysis

The percent air voids, or voids in the total mix (VTM), in the compacted mixtures was found
in accordance ASTM D 2041. Percent air voids is the air voids in the compacted sample
expressed as a percentage of the total volume of the sample. Percent air voids was computed
as:

A B
VTM 100 (4.6)
A

Where:
A = Average bulk specific gravity of three specimens
B = Maximum theoretical specific gravity of the mixture
The percent voids in the mineral aggregate (VMA) is the volume of space between the
aggregate particles (air voids of the compacted mixture) plus the volume of the asphalt not
absorbed into the aggregates. Percent voids in the mineral aggregate was computed as:

A* B
VMA 100 (4.7)
C

Where:
A = Average bulk specific gravity of compacted mixture
B = Percent by weight of aggregate mixture
C = Bulk specific gravity of combined aggregate

32
The percent voids filled with asphalt (VFA) is the percentage of the VMA that is made up of
asphalt. The percent voids filled with asphalt was calculated using the following relationship:

VMA VTM
VFA *100
VMA (4.8)

4.5 MIX DESIGN RESULTS

Once the optimum asphalt contents for the three mix designs were determined the percent air
voids, bulk specific gravity, stability, flow, and VMA were compared to the values required by
WVDOH. The properties of the Wearing 1 mixture were acceptable except for the VMA.
For a mix with a maximum aggregate size of 9.5 mm, the minimum VMA is 15 percent.
Depending on the analytical method used, the VMA was low by 2.1 to 2.75 percent. The Base
2 mix met all criteria except for VMA. The VMA for the mix was low by 1.4 percent. The
Base 1 mix met all WVDOH specifications. The VMA specification for a mixture with a
maximum aggregate size of 37.5 mm was 11 percent and the mix had a VMA of 11.0 to 11.1
percent. In proportioning a mixture for constructed, the Base 1 mix might be redesigned
however, because the scope of this study was focused on the test variability the Base 1 mix
design was accepted. Since the Wearing 1 and Base 2 did not meet the VMA criteria, they
were redesigned.

To increase VMA the percent coarse aggregate in the Wearing 1 mix was increased, Figure 4.6.
However, samples made with the new gradation showed only a slight change in VMA; not
enough to meet the specifications. Greer Limestone was contacted to determine the gradation
they used for each of the mixes. The Greer Limestone gradation, Figure 4.7, was more
uniformly graded than the mixes previously attempted at the WVU laboratory. The Wearing 1
Greer Limestone gradation had 5 percent of the aggregate retained on the 9.5 mm sieve. This
gradation was evaluated. The VMA was under specification but very close to the minimum
limit. A final attempt was made to find a gradation that would provide a suitable VMA. A
more exaggerated uniformly graded blend was used while staying within WVDOH and
SUPERPAVE specifications, Figure 4.8. At four percent air voids the VMA was greater than

33
Figure 4.6. Second Gradation Attempt for Wearing 1

Figure 4.7. Third Gradation Attempt for Wearing 1 (Greer Gradation)

34
Figure 4.8. Forth Gradation Attempt for Wearing 1

the required 15 percent but the percent air voids versus percent asphalt showed that the
asphalt content was close to 10 percent. The WVDOH specification allows up to 10 percent
asphalt content, but this would not be an economical mix and would probably fail the stability
requirements.

After reviewing all four of the Wearing 1 mixes, the gradation used by Greer Limestone was
selected even though it did not passed all WVDOH requirements.

The Base 2 gradation used by Greer Limestone was evaluated (Figure 4.9), even though this
gradation passes through the restricted zone. However, meeting Superpave criteria was not a
constraint on this project. Unfortunately, a low VMA resulted in this mixture as well. Since
the Greer mixture was used for WVDOH projects, it was chosen over the initial mix design.
The selected gradations are presented in Table 4.6.

The Marshall mix design charts for each of the mixes used in the balance of the research are
presented in Appendix D. Even though the Wearing 1 and Base 2 failed the VMA criteria,

35
they passed all of the other WVDOH criteria. Since the objective of this project is to evaluate
the precision of the Marshall method, the failure of the selected mixes to satisfy the VMA
criteria should not appreciably affect the research results.

Figure 4.9. Gradation for Second Base 2 Mixture (Greer Gradation)

36
Table 4.6. Gradations Used in Study

Sieve Percent Passing Sieve Size Percent Retained

Size
(mm) Base 1 Base 2 Wearing 1 (mm) Base 1 Base 2 Wearing 1
50 100 - - 50 0 - -
37.5 90 - - 37.5 10 - -
25 75 100 - 25 15 0 -
19 65 97.8 - 19 10 2.2 -
12.5 55 80 100 12.5 10 17.8 -
9.5 50 67 98 9.5 5 13 2
4.75 33 54.8 66 4.75 17 12.2 32
2.36 20 40.3 43 2.36 13 14.5 23
1.18 13 27 25 1.18 7 13.3 18
0.6 - - - 0.6 - - -
0.3 8.0 8.8 9 0.3 5 18.2 16
0.15 - - - 0.15 - - -
0.075 4 3.5 2.2 0.075 4 5.3 6.8
- - - - Pan 4 3.5 2.2

4.6 SAMPLE FABRICATION

Once the mix designs for each of the mixes were completed, the samples were fabricated and
distributed to laboratories. Fourteen laboratories, including the Asphalt Technology
Laboratory at West Virginia University, all ten WVDOH District material laboratories, the
central materials laboratory, and the Greer Limestone, and West Virginia Paving laboratories,
participated in the study.

All asphalt cement and aggregates for this research were obtained from Greer Limestone in
Clarksburg, WV. Samples were mixed in a bucket mixer at the Asphalt Technology
Laboratory ant West Virginia University. Aggregates were heated to the mix temperature. The
asphalt cement was kept at a constant temperature of 158 C in a pour pot.

Aggregates were weighed out in each sieve size to the proper amount specified for that
aggregate gradation. All aggregates passing the 19 mm sieve were weighed to 0.1 g. All
aggregates passing the 37.5 mm sieve but retained on the 19 mm sieve or higher were weighed
to 1 g. Any aggregate retained on the 37.5 mm sieve was weighed to 2 g. The scale used for

37
weighing the asphalt cement would not allow for measurements more accurate than 0.1 g
because of the weight of the bucket and aggregate also being weighed.

Base 1 mixes were fabricated first followed by Wearing 1 and then Base 2 mixes. The order in
which the mixtures were made was deemed insignificant since comparisons of the variability
between different mixture types were not the focus of this project. Only variability between
the same type mixes was evaluated.

Originally, four specimens were to be sent to each laboratory for each of mix type. Three of
the samples were to be compacted and tested for voids, stability, and flow for each mixture
type. The fourth sample was to be used to determine maximum theoretical specific gravity.
After the Base 1 mixing was started, it was decided that two maximum theoretical specific
gravity tests should be performed to provide data on the within laboratory variability. This
created a problem because additional containers had to be ordered and would not arrive in
time to finish all of the Base 1 mixes at one time. For this reason 60 of the Base 1 samples
were prepared initially. The remaining Base 1 samples were prepared after the Base 2 and
Wearing 1 samples were mixed. .

The samples were placed in shipment containers and labeled. The samples were randomly
selected for each laboratory except for those used by the Asphalt Technology Laboratory at
WVU. The samples sent to each laboratory are identified in Appendix E. The samples tested
at WVU were prepared after the samples were shipped to the other laboratories. If significant
differences occurred in the results then all of the results for the WVU laboratory would be
disregarded since there was the potential for a bias in the sample preparation due to these
samples not being randomly selected.

4.7 SPECIMEN DISTRIBUTION

Two days after all of the samples were mixed the samples were mailed to the laboratories.
Instructions were also included with a cover letter, giving the compaction temperature range
and explanation of the code on each can. The package also included a survey form with brief
questions concerning the equipment and technician. A copy of the letter, survey form, and
data sheets are included in Appendix F.

38
After all of the samples were sent to the laboratories, each laboratory was contacted to review
the project requirements. The laboratories were also asked to return the results of the tests
within two weeks of receiving the samples. In response to questions from the technicians at
the laboratories, it was necessary to provide additional testing information requiring (1)
compacting the samples for a heavy traffic design, (2) use of the dryback method for the
maximum theoretical specific gravity test and (3) compaction of the samples at the middle
temperature of the allowable range..

39
 CHAPTER 5
DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

5.1 INTRODUCTION
The 14 laboratories returned the data within one month. The raw data were consolidated into
six tables presented in Appendix E. From this raw data the stability, flow, unit weight and
percent air voids were calculated and tabulated in Appendix G. These data were analyzed in
accordance with ASTM Standard C 802, Conducting an Inter-laboratory Test Program to
Determine the Precision of Test Methods for Construction Materials.

Once all of the data from this experiment were analyzed, select data from the literature review
were analyzed and compared to the data from this study. Finally, the data were evaluated for
correlation between different characteristics of the participating laboratories and technicians.
These characteristics were obtained through the survey form distributed with the samples.
The survey form is included in Appendix F.

5.2 TEST FOR OUTLIERS

ASTM C 802 specifies that no data may be ruled as an outlier in an inter-laboratory study
unless an assignable cause is identified. For this reason, in the first stage of the data analysis
only two results were discarded. The two discarded values came from the District 1 maximum
theoretical specific gravity tests for the Wearing 1 mix. The laboratory technician was
contacted to see if he could locate the source of the error but a cause could not be identified.
Since these two values obviously resulted from a gross blunder, they were discarded. Since the
calculation of percent air voids is dependent on the maximum theoretical specific gravity, the
Wearing 1 percent air voids results from the District 1 laboratory were discarded as well.

5.3 PRELIMINARY DATA ANALYSIS

The next stage in the research was to calculate the within-laboratory average and variance for
each characteristic of the three replicates. These results are presented in Tables 5.1, 5.2, and

40
5.3. Using the procedures in ASTM C 802, as outlined in Appendix A, the results in these
tables were evaluated for the acceptability of the amount of variance in the test results.
Statistical tests are used to test for both high and low variance. The high variance test is based
on the ratio of the highest variance in the set of tests divided by the sum of the variances for
all the labs. The low variance test uses the ratio of the highest to lowest variance for each set
of results. These ratios are compared to the statistical limit values in Tables A.1 and A.2.

The results of the variance evaluation are presented in Table 5.4. Results that do not meet the
criteria are shown in bold. These results indicate there are many issues with the amount of
variability in the test results. Investigation of the data demonstrated that a single abnormal
result can cause this statistical test to indicate problems in the data set. This is demonstrated
by examining the variability plots, Figures 5.1 to 5.15.

Table 5.4 indicates the variability of the maximum theoretical specific gravity is both too great
and too small. Figure 5.1 shows there is very low variability with one exception. District 5 had
a variance of 0.0039. The next highest variance for the Base 1 maximum theoretical specific
gravity was 0.00084. Table G1 shows the two test results for District 5 were 2.566 and 2.654.
This difference does not seem excessive, but when tested against the low variability produced
by the other labs, there is a statistical indication of high variability. The test for low variability
for the maximum theoretical specific gravity could not be computed as there was at least one
lab with zero variance. These statistics were computed using two replicate samples per lab. It
is difficult to make statistically valid statements with only two replicates. The fact that labs
measured the same results for two samples is not unreasonable.

The stability of the Wearing 1 mix also indicates the variance that is too high and too low.
Figure 5.6 shows the results from District 3 have a high variance. The District 3 Wearing 1
stability results were 12300, 6000 and 4300 N. The highest result in near the average value for
the other labs, but there is not explanation for the other two abnormally low results. The
consistency of the results produced by the other labs tends to indicate the District 3 results are an
aberration. Low variance is also identified as an issue. However, the test for low variance is
based on the ratio of the high variance divided by the low variance. A high result can be triggered
by either a high or low variance. In this case the indicator of low variance is actually triggered by
the high variance results from District 3. If these results are not considered, the high/low ratio
would be 48.5 which indicates low variance is not an issue.

41
 Table 5.1. Base 1 Within-laboratory Averages and Variances

Gmm Stability Flow Gmb Percent Air

Voids
Lab Avg. Var. Avg. Var. Avg. Var. Avg. Var. Avg. Var.
DST. 1 2.558 0.0000180 25700 7860000 15.5 0.75 2.446 0.0000300 4.4 0.04
DST. 2 2.566 0.0000000 21600 2120000 13.9 5.13 2.451 0.0000280 4.5 0.05
DST. 3 2.562 0.0000050 25300 6330000 15.5 19.20 2.454 0.0000270 4.2 0.03
DST. 4 2.560 0.0000000 24000 4480000 17.5 5.25 2.451 0.0000160 4.3 0.03
DST. 5 2.610 0.0038720 11100 40000 11.3 0.44 2.415 0.0000420 7.5 0.06
DST. 6 2.563 0.0000050 21100 9400000 15.5 15.25 2.439 0.0000300 4.8 0.04
DST. 7 2.555 0.0000840 19700 1840000 14.1 2.21 2.446 0.0000650 4.2 0.09
DST. 8 2.563 0.0000050 14200 200000 12.7 2.33 2.403 0.0000480 6.3 0.08
DST. 9 2.565 0.0000000 25100 3940000 18.8 7.58 2.455 0.0002280 4.3 0.36
42

DST. 10 2.560 0.0000000 25500 15370000 15.1 0.90 2.447 0.0000400 4.4 0.05
Central 2.562 0.0000050 21800 1600000 12.7 0.33 2.462 0.0000330 3.9 0.05
Greer 2.560 0.0000020 16000 1920000 16.0 0.25 2.434 0.0000020 4.9 0.00
WV Paving 2.566 0.0000000 17200 440000 15.9 10.29 2.408 0.0000890 6.1 0.14
WVU 2.561 0.0000020 18700 160000 15.5 2.25 2.445 0.0000060 4.5 0.01
 Table 5.2. Base 2 Within-laboratory Averages and Variances

Gmm Stability Flow Gmb Percent Air

Voids
Lab Avg. Var. Avg. Var. Avg. Var. Avg. Var. Avg. Var.
DST. 1 2.519 0.0000120 16500 1210000 10.8 2.58 2.430 0.0000520 3.5 0.10
DST. 2 2.525 0.0000000 14900 520000 11.2 0.58 2.448 0.0000360 3.1 0.06
DST. 3 2.524 0.0000000 11300 8190000 9.0 0.22 2.359 0.0018570 6.3 2.08
DST. 4 2.519 0.0000020 14100 210000 11.8 0.33 2.450 0.0000810 2.7 0.12
DST. 5 2.530 0.0000000 12200 2540000 11.7 1.08 2.433 0.0000050 3.8 0.01
DST. 6 2.522 0.0000020 14200 1340000 13.2 10.58 2.431 0.0000300 3.6 0.04
DST. 7 2.519 0.0000000 13200 4030000 12.2 0.27 2.445 0.0000910 2.9 0.12
DST. 8 2.525 0.0000000 12700 320000 13.3 1.33 2.439 0.0000260 3.4 0.04
DST. 9 2.522 0.0000080 15400 400000 10.5 0.00 2.444 0.0000260 3.1 0.04
43

DST. 10 2.520 0.0000000 17600 1960000 9.3 0.44 2.420 0.0003050 4.0 0.52
Central 2.520 0.0000020 13200 440000 11.7 1.08 2.452 0.0001140 2.7 0.21
Greer 2.523 0.0000010 10800 520000 12.3 2.08 2.426 0.0003130 3.8 0.50
WV Paving 2.521 0.0000040 12100 1650000 12.3 0.57 2.422 0.0002700 4.0 0.41
WVU 2.522 0.0000050 15300 1010000 10.7 0.52 2.434 0.0000610 3.5 0.10
 Table 5.3. Wearing 1 Within-laboratory Averages and Variances

Gmm Stability Flow Gmb Percent Air

Voids
Lab Avg. Var. Avg. Var. Avg. Var. Avg. Var. Avg. Var.
DST. 1 15400 120000 9.3 1.08 2.427 0.0040330
DST. 2 2.491 0.0000000 13600 170000 9.6 0.52 2.408 0.0000940 3.4 0.16
DST. 3 2.485 0.0000000 7500 17760000 13.3 1.77 2.278 0.0073720 8.3 11.85
DST. 4 2.482 0.0000120 14300 570000 10.8 0.58 2.407 0.0000060 3.0 0.01
DST. 5 2.494 0.0000000 11500 30000 11.3 0.44 2.374 0.0000940 4.8 0.13
DST. 6 2.485 0.0000000 12900 210000 11.3 3.08 2.377 0.0000140 4.3 0.02
DST. 7 2.473 0.0000120 12400 20000 13.0 22.75 2.400 0.0000300 3.0 0.06
DST. 8 2.486 0.0000010 11300 80000 10.0 0.75 2.386 0.0000270 4.0 0.05
DST. 9 2.485 0.0000000 14400 670000 9.8 0.33 2.385 0.0000650 4.0 0.12
DST. 10 2.480 0.0000080 15900 970000 9.6 0.52 2.362 0.0000120 4.8 0.02
44

Central 2.490 0.0000120 12600 130000 10.3 0.08 2.403 0.0000420 3.5 0.06
Greer 2.482 0.0000010 11900 90000 9.3 0.58 2.391 0.0000650 3.6 0.09
WV Paving 2.484 0.0000180 10100 140000 13.4 0.30 2.354 0.0001290 5.2 0.22
WVU 2.491 0.0000050 14200 490000 9.7 0.08 2.403 0.0000670 3.6 0.09
Table 5.4. Test for High and Low Variability

Parameter Material Test for High Test for Low

Variance Upper Variance Upper 5%
5% Level Level (High/Low)2
(High/Sum)1

Max. Base 1 0.968 *

Theoretical Base 2 0.333 *
Specific
Gravity Wearing 1 0.261 *
Base 1 0.276 384
Stability Base 2 0.336 39
Wearing 1 0.828 888
Base 1 0.266 77
Flow Base 2 0.488 *
Wearing 1 0.692 284
Base 1 0.333 114
Bulk
Specific Base 2 0.568 371
Gravity 0.612 1229
Wearing 1
Base 1 0.343 121
Percent Air
Base 2 0.476 160
Voids
Wearing 1 0.918 1185
1
Limit 0.492 for maximum theoretical specific gravity, 0.345 for all other cells
2
Limit undefined for maximum theoretical specific gravity, 885 for all other
cells
3
* Zero Variability

45
 0.0045
0.0040
0.0035
Variance
0.0030
0.0025
0.0020
0.0015
0.0010
0.0005
0.0000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Laboratory

Figure 5.1. Base 1 Maximum Theoretical Specific Gravity Variance versus Laboratory.

0.000014
0.000012
Variance (N)

0.000010
0.000008
0.000006
0.000004
0.000002
0.000000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Laboratory

Figure 5.2. Base 2 Maximum Theoretical Specific Gravity Variance versus Laboratory

0.000010

0.000008
Variance

0.000006

0.000004

0.000002

0.000000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Laboratory

Figure 5.3. Wearing 1 Maximum Theoretical Specific Gravity Variance versus Laboratory

46
 18000000
16000000
14000000
12000000

Variance
10000000
8000000
6000000
4000000
2000000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Laboratory

Figure 5.4. Base 1 Marshall Stability Variance versus Laboratory

18000000
16000000
14000000
12000000
Variance

10000000
8000000
6000000
4000000
2000000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Laboratory

Figure 5.5. Base 2 Marshall Stability Variance versus Laboratory

18000000
16000000
14000000
12000000
Variance

10000000
8000000
6000000
4000000
2000000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Laboratory

Figure 5.6. Wearing 1 Marshall Stability Variance versus Laboratory

47
 25

20

Variance
15

10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Laboratory

Figure 5.7. Base 1 Marshall Flow Variance versus Laboratory

12

10

8
Variance

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Laboratory

Figure 5.8. Base 2 Marshall Flow Variance versus Laboratory

25

20
Variance

15

10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Laboratory

Figure 5.9. Wearing 1 Marshall Flow Variance versus Laboratory

48
 0.00025

0.00020

Variance
0.00015

0.00010

0.00005

0.00000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Laboratory

Figure 5.10. Base 1 Bulk Specific Gravity Variance versus Laboratory

0.00200

0.00150
Variance

0.00100

0.00050

0.00000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Laboratory

Figure 5.11. Base 2 Bulk Specific Gravity Variance versus Laboratory

0.00800
0.00700
0.00600
Variance

0.00500
0.00400
0.00300
0.00200
0.00100
0.00000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Laboratory

Figure 5.12. Wearing 1 Bulk Specific Gravity Variance versus Laboratory

49
 0.40
0.35
0.30

Variance
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Laboratory

Figure 5.13. Base 1 Percent Air Voids Variance versus Laboratory

0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
Variance

0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Laboratory

Figure 5.14. Base 2 Percent Air Voids Variance versus Laboratory

14.00
12.00
10.00
Variance

8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Laboratory

Figure 5.15. Wearing 1 Percent Air Voids Variance versus Laboratory

50
The variance test for the flow of the Base 2 mixes also shows both high and low variance
issues. As shown on Figure 5.8 District 6 had higher variance than the other labs. Review of
the data in Table G.8 shows one test result was 16.5 while the other results for District 6 were
reasonable. This is another case where a single test result across all labs caused the indication
of high variance. If this result is removed from the analysis, the high variance evaluation
would meet the ASTM criteria. District 9 obtained the same flow values for all replicates of
the Base 2 material. Hence the variance for this lab was zero, triggering the indication of a
potential low variance issue.

High variance was identified for the flow test for the Wearing 1 material. As shown on Figure
5.9 District 7 was the source of the high variance. Review of Table G.9 shows one test result
was 18.5 while the other two tests were reasonable. The single high test result is the reason for
the indication of high variance. Without this result, the high variance test would indicate an
acceptable amount of variance between the tests.

High variance was identified for the bulk specific gravity of the Base 2 material. As shown on
Figure 5.11 District 3 has a much higher variance than the other labs. Review of the data in
Table G.11 shows only one of the three replicate tests are in line with the results from the
other labs. Hence it appears that District 3 did have issues with the performance of this test for
the Base 2 material.

Table 5.4 shows both high and low variance issues for the bulk specific gravity of the Wearing
1 material. Review of Figure 5.12 shows that District 3 has a much higher variance than the
other labs, but District 1 also has a high variance. Review of the data in Table G.12 shows that
all the results from District 3 are lower than the results from the other labs. Only one of the
three replicate tests from District 3 is reasonably close to the results from the other labs. This
suggests District 3 had issues with the performance of the bulk specific gravity test for the
Wearing 1 material. The low variance test also identifies a potential problem. Due to the scale
on Figure 5.12 it is difficult to identify the lab with the lowest variance. Reviewing the data in
Table G.12 shows District 4 has the lowest variance, but it is not unreasonable. As with the
case for the low variance indicator for the stability of the Wearing 1 mix, the low variance
indicator for the bulk specific gravity is the result of the high variance of the District 3 results.

51
Removal of District 3 from the analysis would result in a high/low ratio of 672, which would
not indicate an issue with low variance.

The variance of the percent air voids identifies the same problems as were identified for the
bulk specific gravity. This is expected since the percent air voids is computed using the bulk
and maximum theoretical specific gravities. The high variance indicators are the result of high
variability in the District 3 results. The low variance indicator is also the result of the high
variance in the District 3 results.

A common problem with test results from an inter-laboratory study is the presence of
interactions between the laboratories and materials. This means that the pattern of change of
the results obtained on a given group of materials in one laboratory differs from the pattern
obtained from other laboratories (ASTM C 802). Differences in the patterns between several
laboratories indicate the test method should be reevaluated. To examine interactions charts of
the sample property versus the material type were prepared. Lines are drawn between each
material for each laboratory and the slope and location of the lines are compared to the other
laboratories (Figures 5.16 to 5.20). The trend lines on each of these figures should have similar
slopes and magnitudes. If a line for one laboratory differs from the pattern of the other
laboratories the data from that laboratory may be an outliers.

Figure 5.16 shows a consistent pattern of the maximum theoretical specific gravity decreasing
going from the Base 1 to Base 2 to Wearing 1 mixes. This is expected as the nominal
maximum aggregate size decreases respectively across these mix types and there is a
corresponding increase in the asphalt content. Higher asphalt contents reduce the maximum
theoretical specific gravity. The only abnormality noticed on this Figure 5.16 is that District 5
consistently had the highest test results. The District 5 results are similar to the results of the
other labs for the Base 2 and Wearing 1 materials. For the Base 2 material, the higher
maximum theoretical specific gravity is the result of one test of the replicate being higher that
the results of the other labs.

The stability data should decrease as the nominal maximum aggregate size decreases. Figure
5.17 shows this trend generally holds true. District 5 measured a lower stability for the Base 1
mix than for either the Base 2 or Wearing 1 mixes. This suggests an abnormality in the results

52
reported by District 5. District 4 and Greer reported the stability of the Base 2 mix was less
than the stability of the Wearing 1 mix. However, the magnitudes of the differences are not
large enough to cause concern.

Figure 5.18 shows a general trend for flow to decrease with a reduction in the nominal
maximum aggregate size. However two of the labs measured higher flow for the Base 2
material compared to the Base 1 material and four labs measured higher values for the
Wearing 1 than the Base 2. WVDOH specifications of flow allow a wide range of flow values
due to the high variance of this test.

Figures 5.19 and 5.20 show reasonable agreement and similar trends for bulk specific gravity
and percent air voids for all laboratories with the exception of District 3. The low bulk
specific gravity and high air void content of the Base 2 and Wearing 1 samples from District 3
indicate inadequate compaction. This could be a reason the Marshall stability of these samples
was relatively low, especially for the Wearing 1 samples.

DST. 2
Maximum Theoretical Specif Gravity

2.65 DST. 3
DST. 4
2.60 DST. 5
DST. 6
2.55
DST. 7
DST. 8
2.50
DST. 9
DST. 10
2.45
Central

2.40 Greer

Base 1 Base 2 Wearing 1 WV Pav

Material WVU

Figure 5.16. Material type versus Maximum Theoretical Specific Gravity

53
 30000 DST. 1
DST. 2
25000 DST. 3
DST. 4
20000 DST. 5
Stability

DST. 6
15000 DST. 7
DST. 8
10000 DST. 9
DST. 10
5000 Central
Greer
0 WV Pav
Base 1 Base 2 Wearing 1 WVU

Material

Figure 5.17. Material type versus Marshall Stability

20
DST. 1
DST. 2
18
DST. 3
DST. 4
16
DST. 5
Flow

DST. 6
14
DST. 7
DST. 8
12
DST. 9
DST. 10
10
Central
Greer
8
WV Pav
Base 1 Base 2 Wearing 1 WVU
Material

Figure 5.18. Material type versus Marshall Flow

54
 2.50 DST. 1
DST. 2
DST. 3
2.45
DST. 4
Bulk Specif Gravity
DST. 5
2.40 DST. 6
DST. 7
2.35 DST. 8
DST. 9
DST. 10
2.30
Central
Greer
2.25 WV Pav
Base 1 Base 2 Wearing 1
WVU
Material

Figure 5.19. Material type versus Bulk Specific Gravity

9
DST. 2
8 DST. 3
7 DST. 4
Percent Air Voids

DST. 5
6
DST. 6
5
DST. 7
4 DST. 8
3 DST. 9
DST. 10
2
Central
1
Greer
0 WV Pav
Base 1 Base 2 Wearing 1 WVU
Material

Figure 5.20. Material type versus Percent Air Voids

55
5.4 PRECISION PARAMETERS FOR ALL DATA
The data from all 14 laboratories were used to compute the precision parameters in Tables 5.5
to 5.9. These tables present the 1s and d2s values for the single operator and multi-laboratory
analysis. The 1s values are the standard deviations associated with each analysis situation. The
d2s values represent maximum range expected in the difference between two tests. There is a
one in twenty chance of the difference between two properly conducted tests being greater
than the d2s value. The precision parameters were computed for four situations:

1. Analysis of the individual material types,

2. Analysis pooling the variability of all data, and
3. Analysis pooling the variability of the 102 mm samples independent from the 152 mm
samples, and
4. Analysis of the 152 mm samples independent from the 102 mm samples.
The first type of analysis is used for exploring the data, not for the development of precision
statements. The second type of analysis represents the ideal situation where the variability in
the test method is independent of material type and sample size. However, the analysis of the
data demonstrated that there are significant differences in the variability of the test results
based on the sample size. Therefore, the third and fourth types of analyses are needed to
identify the precision of the test methods using the 102 mm diameter samples for the Base 2
and Wearing 1 mixes and the 152 mm diameter samples used for the Base 1 mixes.

For analysis methods 2 to 4, Tables 5.5 to 5.9 show the precision parameters for the
assumptions of constant standard deviation and constant coefficient of variation. The
constant standard deviation assumption applies when the magnitude of the standard deviation
is independent of the magnitude of the dependent variable. The constant coefficient of
variation assumption is used when the magnitude of the variation is correlated with the
magnitude of the dependent variable. The analysis of the data collected during this research
demonstrates the constant standard deviation assumption is acceptable for both the 102 mm
and 152 mm sample sizes.

56
Table 5.5 Precision of Maximum Theoretical Specific Gravity (all data)

Single Multi-
Operator laboratory
(1s) (d2s) (1s) (ds2)
Single Materials
Base 1 (Single Material) 0.0169 0.0478 0.0210 0.0595
Base 2 (Single Material) 0.0060 0.0170 0.0067 0.0190
Wearing 1 (Single Material) 0.0022 0.0063 0.0059 0.0168
All Materials
Constant Standard Deviation 0.0104 0.0295 0.0132 0.0373
Constant Coefficient of Variation 0.3291 0.9307 0.4416 1.2490
102 mm Samples (Wearing 1 and Base 2)
Constant Standard Deviation 0.0045 0.0128 0.0063 0.0179
Constant Coefficient of Variation 0.1639 0.4637 0.2526 0.7145
152 mm Sample (Base 1)
Constant Standard Deviation 0.0169 0.0478 0.0210 0.0595
Constant Coefficient of Variation 0.6593 1.8648 0.8196 2.3182

Table 5.6 Precision of Stability (all data)

Single Multi-
Operator laboratory
(1s) (d2s) (1s) (ds2)
Single Materials
Base 1 (Single Material) 631 1785 4324 12230
Base 2 (Single Material) 417 1179 1681 4755
Wearing 1 (Single Material) 391 1106 1996 5646
All Materials
Constant Standard Deviation 492 1390 2916 8247
Constant Coefficient of Variation 3.1 8.7 16.3 46.2
102 mm Samples (Wearing 1 and Base 2)
Constant Standard Deviation 404 1144 1845 5219
Constant Coefficient of Variation 3.1 8.6 14.0 39.5
152 mm Sample (Base 1)
Constant Standard Deviation 631 1785 4324 12230
Constant Coefficient of Variation 21.1 59.7 21.1 59.7

57
Table 5.7. Precision of Flow (all data)

Single Multi-
Operator laboratory
(1s) (d2s) (1s) (ds2)
Single Materials
Base 1 (Single Material) 2.3 6.4 2.9 8.3
Base 2 (Single Material) 1.2 3.5 1.8 5.0
Wearing 1 (Single Material) 1.5 4.3 2.1 5.9
All Materials
Constant Standard Deviation 1.7 4.9 2.3 6.6
Constant Coefficient of Variation 13.4 37.9 18.1 51.3
102 mm Samples (Wearing 1 and Base 2)
Constant Standard Deviation 1.4 3.9 1.9 5.5
Constant Coefficient of Variation 12.6 35.5 17.4 49.2
152 mm Sample (Base 1)
Constant Standard Deviation 2.3 6.4 2.9 8.3
Constant Coefficient of Variation 15.1 42.8 19.6 55.3

Table 5.8. Precision of Bulk Specific Gravity (all data)

Single Multi-
Operator laboratory
(1s) (d2s) (1s) (ds2)
Single Materials
Base 1 (Single Material) 0.0070 0.0198 0.0195 0.0551
Base 2 (Single Material) 0.0153 0.0432 0.0274 0.0775
Wearing 1 (Single Material) 0.0293 0.0830 0.0457 0.1292
All Materials
Constant Standard Deviation 0.0195 0.0552 0.0327 0.0926
Constant Coefficient of Variation 0.715 2.023 1.281 3.623
102 mm Samples (Wearing 1 and Base 2)
Constant Standard Deviation 0.0234 0.0662 0.0377 0.1065
Constant Coefficient of Variation 0.930 2.629 1.522 4.304
152 mm Sample (Base 1)
Constant Standard Deviation 0.0070 0.0198 0.0195 0.0551
Constant Coefficient of Variation 0.287 0.811 0.799 2.259

58
Table 5.9. Precision of Percent Air Voids (all data)

Single Multi-
Operator laboratory
(1s) (d2s) (1s) (ds2)
Single Materials
Base 1 (Single Material) 0.28 0.78 1.06 3.00
Base 2 (Single Material) 0.56 1.58 1.04 2.95
Wearing 1 (Single Material) 1.00 2.82 1.69 4.79
All Materials
Constant Standard Deviation 0.68 1.92 1.30 3.68
Constant Coefficient of Variation 14.8 42.0 30.1 85.1
102 mm Samples (Wearing 1 and Base 2)
Constant Standard Deviation 0.81 2.29 1.41 3.98
Constant Coefficient of Variation 19.44 55.0 34.3 97.0
152 mm Sample (Base 1)
Constant Standard Deviation 0.28 0.78 1.06 3.00
Constant Coefficient of Variation 5.65 16.0 21.7 61.4

5.5 DATA ANALYSIS AND PRECISION PARAMETERS WITHOUT DISTRICT 3

There was no assignable cause to remove the data from any of the laboratories. However, the
District 3 data have high variability in many parameters compared to the other laboratories, as
demonstrated on Figures 5.16 to 5.20. Table 5.4 shows that eight test characteristics had high
variance, of these five were associated with the variability of the District 3 results. There were
three cases where there was the indication of low variability was the result of the high
variability of the District 3 results. Thus, the analysis repeated with the District 3 data removed
from the data set. Removing a suspect data set from the analysis is described in the ASTM
specification for developing precision statements.

The agreements of variance results, without District 3, are presented in Table 5.10. The
comparative number for extreme high and low variances was adjusted due to the reduction in
the number of laboratories used in the analysis. There are still four indications of high
variance. The maximum theoretical specific gravity for Base 1, and the flow results for Base 2
and Wearing 1 remained out of range since their indicators of high variance were not
attributed to District 3. The bulk specific gravity of the Wearing 1 mix still shows the high
variability is out of range. As shown on Figure 5.12 the variance of District 1, while not as
great as District 3, was still much greater than the variances of the other labs. Reviewing the

59
Table 5.10. Test for High and Low Variability without District 3

Test for High

Test for Low
Variance Upper
Parameter Material Variance Upper 5%
5% Level
Level (High/Low)2
(High/Sum)1

Max. Base 1 0.970 *

Theoretical Base 2 0.333 *
Specific
Gravity Wearing 1 0.261 *
Base 1 0.311 384
Stability Base 2 0.250 19
Wearing 1 0.263 49
Base 1 0.288 61
Flow Base 2 0.493 *
Wearing 1 0.732 284
Base 1 0.347 114
Bulk
Specific Base 2 0.222 63
Gravity 0.862
Wearing 1 672
Base 1 0.353 121
Percent Air
Base 2 0.227 40
Voids
Wearing 1 0.211 22
1
Limit 0.514 for maximum theoretical specific gravity, 0.363 for all other cells
2
Limit undefined for maximum theoretical specific gravity, 790 for all other
cells
3
* Zero Variability

data in Table G.12 shows two of the bulk specific gravity replicate tests for Wearing 1 by
District 1 were identical and near the average for all the labs. The third replicate result is much
higher. Looking at the raw data in Table E.3 shows the submerged weight for the third
replicate is out of line compared to the other results, demonstrating the impact of a single
erroneous measurement. However, since there is no assignable cause for removal of this data
point and since the results of District 1 are otherwise reasonable, there is no justification for
the removal of this data point from the analysis.

60
The four cases where the high/low ratio could not be computed due to at least one lab having
zero variance remained. However, the three cases where the high/low ratio was excessive due
to the high variability of the District 3 results have been eliminated.

The parameters of precision without District 3 are reported in Tables 5.11 to 5.15. Table 5.16
summarizes the percent change in the precision values with the removal of District 3. The 1s
and d2s percent differences are the equal since the d2s parameter is a multiple of the 1s
parameter. There are a few instances where the magnitude of the precision is increased with
the removal of the District 3 data set. However, in the majority of cases the magnitude of the
precision statistics is decreased by the removal of District 3 and some of the reductions are
quite large. The largest reductions are for the stability, maximum theoretical specific gravity
and percent air voids of the Base 2 and Wearing 1 samples. There is little difference in the
precision levels for the Base 1 samples. Since different compaction procedures are used for
the Base 1 versus the Base 2 and Wearing 1 samples, and since the stability, bulk specific
gravity and percent air voids are all related to the compaction of the samples, there is reason to
suspect that there was an issue with the compaction of the Base 2 and Wearing 1 samples by
District 3.

Table 5.11 Precision of Maximum Theoretical Specific Gravity without District 3

Single Multi-
Operator laboratory
(1s) (d2s) (1s) (ds2)
Single Materials
Base 1 (Single Material) 0.0175 0.0496 0.0218 0.0617
Base 2 (Single Material) 0.0060 0.0170 0.0068 0.0191
Wearing 1 (Single Material) 0.0024 0.0069 0.0062 0.0176
All Materials
Constant Standard Deviation 0.0108 0.0305 0.0137 0.0386
Constant Coefficient of Variation 0.3399 0.9613 0.4563 1.2906
102 mm Samples (Wearing 1 and Base 2)
Constant Standard Deviation 0.0046 0.0130 0.0065 0.0184
Constant Coefficient of Variation 0.1682 0.4759 0.2595 0.7339
152 mm Sample (Base 1)
Constant Standard Deviation 0.0175 0.0496 0.0218 0.0617
Constant Coefficient of Variation 0.6831 1.9321 0.8500 2.4040

61
Table 5.12 Precision of Stability without District 3

Single Multi-
Operator laboratory
(1s) (d2s) (1s) (ds2)
Single Materials
Base 1 (Single Material) 616 1742 4301 12165
Base 2 (Single Material) 352 996 1699 4805
Wearing 1 (Single Material) 167 472 1650 4667
All Materials
Constant Standard Deviation 421 1191 2835 8018
Constant Coefficient of Variation 2.3 6.4 15.4 43.5
102 mm Samples (Wearing 1 and Base 2)
Constant Standard Deviation 276 780 1675 4737
Constant Coefficient of Variation 1.9 5.3 12.4 34.9
152 mm Sample (Base 1)
Constant Standard Deviation 616 1742 4301 12165
Constant Coefficient of Variation 21.4 60.5 21.4 60.5

Table 5.13 Precision of Flow without District 3

Single Multi-
Operator laboratory
(1s) (d2s) (1s) (ds2)
Single Materials
Base 1 (Single Material) 2.0 5.7 2.8 8.0
Base 2 (Single Material) 1.3 3.6 1.7 4.7
Wearing 1 (Single Material) 1.5 4.4 2.0 5.7
All Materials
Constant Standard Deviation 1.6 4.7 2.2 6.3
Constant Coefficient of Variation 13.0 36.9 17.4 49.1
102 mm Samples (Wearing 1 and Base 2)
Constant Standard Deviation 1.4 4.0 1.8 5.2
Constant Coefficient of Variation 12.8 36.3 16.7 47.1
152 mm Sample (Base 1)
Constant Standard Deviation 2.0 5.7 2.8 8.0
Constant Coefficient of Variation 13.4 38.0 18.7 53.0

62
Table 5.14 Precision of Bulk Specific Gravity without District 3

Single Multi-
Operator laboratory
(1s) (d2s) (1s) (ds2)
Single Materials
Base 1 (Single Material) 0.0071 0.0202 0.0198 0.0559
Base 2 (Single Material) 0.0104 0.0294 0.0147 0.0414
Wearing 1 (Single Material) 0.0190 0.0537 0.0273 0.0774
All Materials
Constant Standard Deviation 0.0132 0.0372 0.0212 0.0601
Constant Coefficient of Variation 0.504 1.426 0.852 2.410
102 mm Samples (Wearing 1 and Base 2)
Constant Standard Deviation 0.0153 0.0433 0.0219 0.0621
Constant Coefficient of Variation 0.610 1.726 0.873 2.468
152 mm Sample (Base 1)
Constant Standard Deviation 0.0071 0.0202 0.0198 0.0559
Constant Coefficient of Variation 0.293 0.828 0.811 2.294

Table 5.15 Precision of Percent Air Voids without District 3

Single Multi-
Operator laboratory
(1s) (d2s) (1s) (ds2)
Single Materials 0.28 0.79 1.08 3.06
Base 1 (Single Material) 0.42 1.19 0.61 1.73
Base 2 (Single Material) 0.30 0.84 0.77 2.19
Wearing 1 (Single Material)
All Materials 0.34 0.96 0.85 2.39
Constant Standard Deviation 8.5 24.2 19.9 56.2
Constant Coefficient of Variation
102 mm Samples (Wearing 1 and Base 2) 0.36 1.03 0.70 1.97
Constant Standard Deviation 9.96 28.2 18.8 53.3
Constant Coefficient of Variation
152 mm Sample (Base 1) 0.28 0.79 1.08 3.06
Constant Standard Deviation 5.70 16.1 22.0 62.1
Constant Coefficient of Variation

63
Table 5.16 Percent change in precision statements without District 3

Gmm Stability Flow Gmb Percent Air Voids

Single Multi Single Multi Single Multi Single Multi Single Multi
Single Materials
Base 1 (Single Material) 3.6% 3.7% -2.4% -0.5% -11.1% -4.2% 2.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.2%
Base 2 (Single Material) 0.0% 0.5% -15.6% 1.1% 3.2% -5.0% -31.9% -46.5% -25.0% -41.5%
Wearing 1 (Single Material) 9.5% 5.1% -57.3% -17.3% 0.8% -4.1% -35.3% -40.1% -70.2% -54.3%

All Materials
Constant Standard Deviation 3.3% 3.5% -14.3% -2.8% -5.3% -4.3% -32.6% -35.1% -50.2% -35.0%
Constant Coefficient of Variation 3.3% 3.3% -25.5% -5.9% -2.8% -4.2% -29.5% -33.5% -42.5% -33.9%

102 mm Samples (Wearing 1 and Base 2)

Constant Standard Deviation 1.2% 2.6% -31.8% -9.2% 1.8% -4.5% -34.6% -41.7% -55.0% -50.4%
Constant Coefficient of Variation 2.6% 2.7% -38.0% -11.5% 2.2% -4.2% -34.4% -42.7% -48.8% -45.0%

152 mm Sample (Base 1)

Constant Standard Deviation 3.6% 3.7% -2.4% -0.5% -11.1% -4.2% 2.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.2%
Constant Coefficient of Variation 3.6% 3.7% 1.4% 1.4% -11.1% -4.2% 2.1% 1.5% 0.9% 1.1%

64
5.6 ANALYSIS OF OTHER STUDIES
Next, the results from this research were compared to the results from similar studies. Table
B.1 is a summary of the precision found from a round-robin study between AMRL
laboratories, conducted for ASTM (Kandhal, 96). This study used 152 mm samples and a
25.4 mm maximum aggregate sized, so the results are compared to the Base 1 data from the
current study. The Kandhal results are similar to the Base 1 standard deviations for bulk
specific gravity, flow, and percent air voids to the current study. The Kandhal single operator
standard deviation for stability was 65 percent greater than the Base 1 results, while the multi-
laboratory standard deviation was 23 percent lower. Given the magnitude of the variability in
the stability testing, this amount of difference in two studies conducted at different times, with
different materials and laboratories, is not unreasonable.

The Georgia DOH study (Siddiqui, 95) provides results comparable to the Base 2 and Wearing
1 materials (Table B.2). The within laboratory and between-laboratory standard deviation of
stability for the Georgia Study were 968 N and 1232 N, respectively. These compare to values
of ??714 N and ??1931 N, respectively, for the current study.

Siddiqui also provided data from Canadian and Utah studies, but only the average test values
from each of the laboratories were reported. Thus, the precision statements cannot be
calculated. To compare the results of these studies to the current study, the standard deviation
of the average results from each laboratory, excluding District 3, were calculated (Table 5.17).
The magnitude of the standard deviation between laboratories is similar to the data in the
literature. The WVU Base 1 results correspond to the ASTM study. The Base 2 and
Wearing 1 results correspond to the Utah, Georgia, and Canadian studies.

65
 Table 5.17. Standard Deviations of Average Laboratory Results from Inter-laboratory
Studies

Bulk Air Voids Stability Flow

Specific
Sample size Study Material Gravity (Percent) (N) (0.25 mm)
Base 2 0.0107 0.46 1910 1.12
WVU
Wearing 1 0.0203 0.72 1700 1.35
5.5% Asphalt 0.013 0.05 2304 3.49
102 mm Utah 6.0% Asphalt 0.012 0.35 1739 2.91
6.5% Asphalt 0.09 2 1263 2.95
Canadian 0.031 - 2500 2
Georgia 0.015 0.58 3673 1.64
WVU Base 1 0.0185 1.05 4560 2.03
152 mm
ASTM 152 mm sample 0.022 0.74 3034 3.59

5.7 EVALUATION OF QUESTIONAIRE INFORMATION

Regression analyses was performed to determine if a correlation existed between information
on the questionnaire and the results from each laboratory. All Marshall hammers and stability
and flow machines where manufactured by Pine Instruments, which eliminates the possibility
of variability between brands of equipment. The technicians' experience was evaluated but
there was no correlation with the averages and variances of the test results. Scatter diagrams of
corrected stability versus temperature, Figures 5.21 to 5.23 showed no correlation.

5.8 PRECISION STATEMENTS

The data collected for this project compare favorably with information in the literature. Thus,
precision statements based on these data are defensible. Since there are differences in the
variances for the 102 mm and 152 mm samples, separate precision statements are needed. The
statements for the 152 mm samples are from the Base 1 data and were developed with the
assumption that the standard deviation is constant. The statements for the 102 mm samples
combine the data from the Wearing 1 and Base 2 mixes and the standard deviation was
assumed to be constant.

66
 35000
30000

Corrected Stability
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
144 146 148 150 152 154 156 158
Temperature

Figure 5.21. Re-heat Temperature versus Base 1 Stability

20000
Corrected Stability

15000

10000

5000

0
144 145 146 147 148 149 150
Temperature

Figure 5.22. Re-heat Temperature versus Base 2 Stability

18000
16000
Corrected Stability

14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
140 142 144 146 148 150 152 154 156
Temperature

Figure 5.23. Plot of Re-heat Temperature versus Wearing 1 Stability

67
The treatment of the data from District 3 is a concern. A rigorous statistical analysis would
include these data since there was not an assignable cause to support their exclusion.
However, the fact that five of the nine stability values reported by District 3 were more than
two standard deviations from the mean for all the data indicates there is a problem with the
data and the cause was undiscovered. There is a one in twenty chance for one value to be
more than two standard deviations from the mean. When one laboratory has five values that
exceed this limit there is a strong indication that an undetected factor was affecting the results
produced at that lab. Using this reasoning, it is prudent to exclude the District 3 data when
developing the precision statements. Therefore, the following precision statements are
recommended based on the data in Tables 5.11 to 5.15.

Maximum Theoretical Specific Gravity (152 mm samples):

The single-operator standard deviation is 0.0175 for calculated maximum theoretical specific
gravities ranging from 2.555 to 2.610. Therefore, the results of two properly conducted tests by
the same operator on the same mix should not differ by more than the difference two-sigma limit
of 0.0496.
The multi-laboratory standard deviation is 0.0218. Therefore, the results of properly conducted
tests from two different laboratories on the same mix should not differ by more than 0.0617.
Maximum Theoretical Specific Gravity (102 mm samples):

The single-operator standard deviation is 0.0046 calculated maximum theoretical specific

gravities ranging from 2.473 to 2.530. Therefore, the results of two properly conducted tests by
the same operator on the same mix should not differ by more than the difference two-sigma limit
of 0.0130.
The multi-laboratory standard deviation is 0.0065. Therefore, the results of properly conducted
tests from two different laboratories on the same mix should not differ by more than 0.0184.
Marshall Stability (152 mm samples):

The single-operator standard deviation is 616 N for measured Marshall stability ranging from
11100 to 25700 N. Therefore, the results of two properly conducted tests by the same operator
on the same mix should not differ by more than the difference two-sigma limit of 1742 N.

68
 The multi-laboratory standard deviation is 4301 N. Therefore, the results of properly
conducted tests from two different laboratories on the same mix should not differ by more than
12165 N.
Marshall Stability (102 mm samples):

The single-operator standard deviation is 276 N for Marshall stability ranging from 10100 to
15900 N. Therefore, the results of two properly conducted tests by the same operator on the
same mix should not differ by more than the difference two-sigma limit of 780.
The multi-laboratory standard deviation is 1675 N. Therefore, the results of properly
conducted tests from two different laboratories on the same mix should not differ by more than
4767 N.
Marshall Flow (152 mm samples):

The single-operator standard deviation is 2.0 (0.25 mm) for measured Marshall flow ranging
from 11.3 to 18.8 (0.25 mm). Therefore, the results of two properly conducted tests by the
same operator on the same mix should not differ by more than the difference two-sigma limit of
5.7 (0.25 mm).
The multi-laboratory standard deviation is 2.8 (0.25 mm). Therefore, the results of properly
conducted tests from two different laboratories on the same mix should not differ by more than
8.0 (0.25 mm).
Marshall Flow (102 mm samples):

The single-operator standard deviation is 1.4 (0.25 mm) for measured Marshall flow ranging
from 9.3 to 13.3 (0.25 mm). Therefore, the results of two properly conducted tests by the same
operator on the same mix should not differ by more than the difference two-sigma limit of 4.0
(0.25 mm).
The multi-laboratory standard deviation is 1.8 (0.25 mm). Therefore, the results of properly
conducted tests from two different laboratories on the same mix should not differ by more than
5.2 (0.25 mm).
Bulk Specific Gravity (152 mm samples):

The single-operator standard deviation is 0.0071 for calculated bulk specific gravities ranging
from 2.403 to 2.462. Therefore, the results of two properly conducted tests by the same
operator on the same mix should not differ by more than the difference two-sigma limit of
0.0202.

69
 The multi-laboratory standard deviation is 0.0198. Therefore, the results of properly conducted
tests from two different laboratories on the same mix should not differ by more than 0.0559.
Bulk Specific Gravity (102 mm samples):

The single-operator standard deviation is 0.0153 calculated bulk specific gravities ranging from
2.354 to 2.452. Therefore, the results of two properly conducted tests by the same operator on
the same mix should not differ by more than the difference two-sigma limit of 0.0433.
The multi-laboratory standard deviation is 0.0198. Therefore, the results of properly conducted
tests from two different laboratories on the same mix should not differ by more than 0.0559.
Percent Air Voids (152 mm samples):

The single-operator standard deviation is 0.28 for percent air voids ranging from 3.9 to 7.5.
Therefore, the results of two properly conducted tests by the same operator on the same mix
should not differ by more than the difference two-sigma limit of 0.79.
The multi-laboratory standard deviation is 1.08. Therefore, the results of properly conducted
tests from two different laboratories on the same mix should not differ by more than 3.06.
Percent Air Voids (102 mm samples):

The single-operator standard deviation is 0.36 for percent air voids ranging 2.7 to 5.2.
Therefore, the results of two properly conducted tests by the same operator on the same mix
should not differ by more than the difference two-sigma limit of 1.03.
The multi-laboratory standard deviation is 0.70. Therefore, the results of properly conducted
tests from two different laboratories on the same mix should not differ by more than 1.97.

5.9 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS

After performing analysis on the asphalt samples tested by the fourteen laboratories across the
state, precision parameters were computed. Comparing the results to those of similar studies
from the literature validated these results. Precision statements were developed for maximum
theoretical specific gravity, Marshall stability, Marshall flow, bulk specific gravity and percent
air voids. Due to the nature of the data provided by the District 3 laboratory, these data were
excluded from the recommended precision statements. Separate precision statements were
prepared for 102 mm and 152 mm samples. In all cases, the standard deviation was assumed
constant for each Marshall parameter.

70
 CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 CONCLUSIONS
The objective of this research, the development of precision statements for the Marshall
method, was accomplished. Of the 14 laboratories participating in the study, the data from 13
laboratories were of sufficient quality to include in the analysis to develop the precision
statements. Three WVDOH mixes were included in the study, Wearing 1, Base 1, and Base 2.
Due to the maximum aggregate size of these mixes, the Wearing 1 and Base 2 mixes were
evaluated in the standard 102 mm Marshall mold. The maximum aggregate size of the Base 2
mix requires use of the 152 mm mold. Evaluation of the variability of the data from these two
mold sizes demonstrated that separate precision statements are needed for each. Based on
these data, precision statements for each sample size, were prepared for:

Marshall stability,

Marshall flow,

Bulk specific gravity,

Percent air voids, and

Maximum theoretical specific gravity.

The results from this study were compared to data from the literature. Similar results were
found, indicating that the data used to develop the precision statements are reasonable when
compared to the results of other asphalt technologists. Thus, the WVDOH can implement
the results of this research with some assurance that all laboratories in the state should be
capable of achieving these levels of testing precision.

In a side issue, the 152 mm Marshall and the Superpave molds require sample sizes that are
difficult to prepare with conventional mixers. A bucket mixer was evaluated and operating
procedures were developed. The mixer and operating procedures were found to prepare the
larger sample size mixes efficiently.

71
6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that precision statements based on the results found in this study be used
in the WVDOH specifications for asphalt concrete. These statements identify the variability
of the different parameters of the Marshall method. These precision statements will also aid in
the quality assurance process for reviewing the work performed by contractors on WVDOH
projects.

Further research could improve the precision statements for WVDOH. The results of this
project are based on single sources for the aggregates and asphalt cement. The study should
be expanded to include more aggregate and asphalt cement types. This will return more
representative precision statements of the mixes used the state.

The study was limited to three of the standard WVDOH mix types. To make precision
statements that better represent the variability of Marshall testing, an inter-laboratory study
could be conducted using all of the WVDOH mix types. Also, only one mix design was used
to develop precision statements for all 152 mm samples and only two mix designs were used
to develop 102 mm sample precision statements. ASTM C802 recommends a minimum of
three material types for developing precision statements. Since the magnitude of the variability
between the 102 mm and 152 mm samples required separate precision statements, the ASTM
recommendation of a minimum of three materials for each type of precision statement was
not followed. Data should be collected from at least one additional material using the 102 mm
mold and two additional materials using the 152 mm mold.

As the WVDOH implements the Superpave gyratory compactor, an experiment should be

performed to determine precision statements for the test parameters for this method.

72
 REFERENCES

Head, W.J., Iskander, W.H., and Frisco, M.R., July 1993. Development of Precision
Statements and Tolerance Limits For test Parameters Associated with Four and Six-Inch
Diameter Marshall Method Mix Design Specimens: A Feasibility Study, West Virginia
University, Morgantown, WV.

Kandhal, P.S., Wu, Y., Parker, F., Jr., and Spellerberg, P.A., 1996, Precision of Marshall
Stability and Flow Test Using 6-in. (152.4 mm) Diameter Specimens, ASTM Journal of
Testing and Evaluation, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 20-25.

Lee, G.J., and Arsenault, P.J., 1984. Report on the 1983 Canadian Asphalt Mix Exchange.
Proc., Twenty-Ninth Annual Conference of Canadian Technical Asphalt Association, pp. 2-29.

Roberts, F. L., Kandhal, P.S., Brown, E.R., Lee, D., and Kennedy, T.W., 1996, Hot Mix Asphalt
Materials, Mixture Design, and Construction.Lanham, MD.

Sherton, H., Cassidy, M., Spellerberg, P. and Savage, D., January 1994. A System for
Calibration of the Marshall Compaction Hammer, FHWA Report. AASHTO Materials
Reference Laboratory

Siddiqui, Z., Trethewey, M.W. and Anderson D.A., 1995. Variables Affecting Marshall Test
Results, Transportation Research Record 1171, TRB, National Research Council, Washington
D.C., pp. 139-148

Kovac, R., 1962. Repeatability of Marshall Test by Analysis of Factorial Experiment Data,
Proceedings of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists Volume 31. pp. 533-562.
New Orleans, LA.

West Virginia Department of Highways, Standard Specifications, Roads and Bridges, 1994,
Charleston, WV.

73
 APPENDIX A

PROCEDURE FOR DEVELOPING PRECISION STATEMENTS

The objective of this research is to determine precision statements for Marshall testing. A
similar study was performed for 152 mm size Marshall stability and flow parameters (Kandhal,
96). The resulting precision statement was used as a model for this study. The precision
statement was:

The single-operator standard deviation is 722 lbs (3212 N) for measured

Marshall stabilities ranging from 4657 lbs (20,715 N) to 6852 lbs (30,524 N).
Therefore, the results of two properly conducted tests by the same operator on
the same mix should not differ by more than the difference of two-sigma limit
of 2042 lbs (9083 N),
The multilaboratory standard deviation is 901 lbs (408 N). Therefore, the
results of the properly conducted tests from two different laboratories on the
same mix should not differ by more than 2548 lbs (11,334 N).
Developing this type of precision statement requires determining the single-operator and
multilaboratory standard deviations. In ASTM terminology, these are the 1s values. The two

sigma limit equals the standard deviation times 2 2 . In ASTM termonology, this is the d2s
values. This limit is used to represent 95 percent of the data. Thus, to develop the precision
statements requires collecting and analysing stat to quantify the single operator and
multilaboreatory standard deviations. The procedures for setting up the experiments and
performing the analysis are defined in several ASTM standards.

ASTM standard C 802 Standard Practice for Conduting an Inter-laboratory Test Program
to Determine the Precision of Test Methods of Construction Materials, gives procedures for
designing the experiment and analysing the data for preparing precision statements. This
practice was closely followed during research. The experimental design requirement and
analytical procedures are summarized below. In addition, ASTM C 670 Practice for
Preparing Precison and Bias Statements for Test Methods for Construction Materials,
provides detailed instrucions for preparing precision statements as needed for this research.

74
ASTM C 802 requires a minimum of ten laboratories participate in the study. Each laboratory
needs personnel with practiced knowledge of the test method being analysed. A minimum of
three materials with at least three replicates each are required for developing multi-laoreatory
precision statements. A replicate is defined as a materal samples which are faricated to have
identical characteristics and properties. Laboratories participatng in the study are instructed
to follow normal operating procedures when testing the samples. All materials should be
the same and no special instructions should be given on how to test them. The idea is to
compare how the tests are normally run.

Once the laboratories submit the test data, ASTM C 802 gives analytical methods for
evaluating the data quality prior to the calculation of the precision statement parameters. The
data are analysed for outliers, agreement of variance and interactions. To evaluate outliers
ASTM C 802 refers to ASTM E 178 Dealing With Outlying Observations. ASTM E 178
recommeds the Students t test for evaluating the sample population for outliers. InSudents t
test, the normalied difference between an observation and the mean for all observations in the
sample are the selected confidence level. The normalized difference is compted as:

( xi x )
ti
s
Where:

ti = computed t value for observation i

xi = single observation from population

x = arithmetic average of all n values

s = estimate of population standard deviation based on the sample data

If the computed t value is greater than the corresponding table value, at that confidence level,
the data point is a potential outlier. The standard deviation emphasizes that values should not
be eliminated from the analysis simply because they fall outside of the selected confidence
range. Some samples will be outside this range through natural variability. For example, if a
confidence level of 95 percent was selected, one observation out of twenty will fall outside of

75
this range. However, the test is helpful in identifying obervations that can be investigated to
determine if there is an assignable cause for the abnormal observation.

Variance is a measure of the spread in the data. Variances are tested for being either too high,
indicating flawed testing methods, or too low, indicating a constraint on the actual material
variability. The test for high variance consists of comparing the ratio of the highest variance
within a laboratory to the sum of the variances from all of the laboratories. The ratio is then
compared to a value based on the number or replicates for each sample, the number of
laboratories, and a confidence limit (Table A.1). The test for low variance consists of
comparing the ratio of the highest variance within a laboratory to the lowest variance withn a
laboratory to a standard table (Table A.2). If the ratios from either test are greater than their
respective table values then the variance of the material parameter must be investigated more
closly by examinimg plots of the variance for each laboratory. If the plot shows one high or
low variance then that laboratory may be removed from the analysis. If the data points are
scattered then the test method may need to be re-evaluated.

Once the data has been evaluated for agreement of variance, the data must be checked for
interactions. Interactions are when the pattern of change of results obtained on a given
group of materials in one laboratory differs from the pattern obtained in another laboratory.
In extreme cases, different laboratories may even fail to rate materials in the same order.
(ASTM C 802). Agreement of variance can be checked either by performing an analysis of
variance or by observing a plot of the material versus the parameter value. Looking at this
plot, the relationship between the materials may be compared to that of the other laboratories.
Similar slopes from one material to the next should be observed. If the relationship between
materials form one laboratory differ greatly from the other observations there may have been
some testing error ato that laboratory. The difference in interactions for this laboratory may
be cause to omit the results from the analysis.

Once outliers, agreement of variance and interactions have been checked within-laboratory
and between laboratory variances, standard deviations, and coefficient of variations should be

76
Table A.1 Approximate Values (Upper 5 percent Level) for the Ratio of the Largest
Variance to the Sum of the Variances

No. of No. of replicates

Labs 2 3 4 5 6
5 0.8412 0.6838 0.5981 0.5441 0.5065
6 0.7808 0.6161 0.5321 0.4803 0.4447
7 0.7271 0.5612 0.480 0.4307 0.3974
8 0.6798 0.5157 0.4377 0.391 0.3595
9 0.9385 0.4775 0.4027 0.3584 0.3286
10 0.6020 0.4450 0.3733 0.3311 0.3029
11 0.5700 0.4140 0.3480 0.3070 0.2810
12 0.5410 0.3924 0.3264 0.2880 0.2624
13 0.5140 0.3630 0.3080 0.2690 0.2470
14 0.4920 0.3450 0.2910 0.2530 0.2320
15 0.4709 0.3346 0.2758 0.2419 0.2195
20 0.3894 0.2705 0.2205 0.1921 0.1735
30 0.2929 0.1980 0.1593 0.1377 0.1237

Table A.2 Approximate Values (Upper 5 percent Level) for the Ratio of the Highest to
Lowest Variance

No. of No. of replicates

Labs 3 4 5 6
5 202 51 25 16
6 266 62 30 19
7 333 73 34 21
8 403 84 38 23
9 475 94 41 25
10 550 104 45 26
11 626 114 48 28
12 704 124 51 30
13 790 135 54 31
14 885 145 57 32
15 995 155 59 33

calculated. The within-laboratory and between-laboratory components of variation are

calculated, as:

Within Laboratory Component of Variance average ( A)

average ( A)
Between Laboratory Component of Variance variance ( B)
n

77
Where:

A = Variance of the replicates tested by each laboratory for each mix (within laboratory
variance)

B = Average value of three replicates tested by each laboratory for each mix.

n = the number of laboratories

Table A.3 is an example of the calculation of the component of variance. In this example,
there are three materials with three replicate each, and 10 laboratories. For material A, the
within-laboratory component of variance is 6.1. The between laboratory component of
variance is 1.1-(6.1/10)=0.49.

Table A.3. Example Calculation of Components of Variance

Material
A B C
Replicate Mean Vari- Replicate Mean Vari- Replicate Mean Vari-
lab 1 2 3 ance 1 2 3 ance 1 2 3 ance
1 5.0 4.0 3.8 4.27 0.41 5.0 2.6 9.0 5.53 10.45 5.5 9.0 6.0 6.83 3.58
2 8.2 2.2 4.0 4.80 9.48 9.0 5.0 7.2 7.07 4.01 3.2 6.5 1.7 3.80 6.03
3 5.9 2.8 1.3 3.33 5.50 9.8 2.1 5.2 5.70 15.01 4.1 4.0 0.4 2.83 4.44
4 3.6 8.3 6.7 6.20 5.71 5.4 7.6 9.6 7.53 4.41 0.6 8.4 9.2 6.07 22.57
5 5.6 0.9 4.1 3.53 5.76 5.9 5.9 9.2 7.00 3.63 3.9 3.7 3.8 3.80 0.01
6 5.2 6.2 1.1 4.17 7.30 3.8 8.0 3.2 5.00 6.84 1.8 7.7 7.6 5.70 11.41
7 6.6 1.4 3.6 3.87 6.81 8.1 5.3 4.8 6.07 3.16 7.8 9.4 5.3 7.50 4.27
8 5.0 5.9 8.9 6.60 4.17 8.3 4.6 1.0 4.63 13.32 3.8 3.6 7.5 4.97 4.82
9 4.5 2.4 7.0 4.63 5.30 5.8 9.7 3.5 6.33 9.82 8.0 8.6 8.5 8.37 0.10
10 3.6 1.4 7.8 4.27 10.57 1.7 5.6 8.0 5.10 10.11 5.0 4.7 4.0 4.57 0.26
Overall average 4.57 5.8 5.44
Pooled within-lab var 6.10 8.26 5.80
Var of lab avg. 1.1 0.9 3.2
Btw lab comp. of var 0.49 0.07 2.62

Knowing the within and between-laboratory variance, the standard deviation and coefficient of
variation can be calculated. The within and between-laboratory standard deviations are the
square roots of their respective variances. The coefficient of variation can be calculated using
the following relationship:

78
 s
COV 100
x
Where:

s = standard deviation

x = average of all observations

From these values the parameters of precision can be calculated.

79
 APPENDIX B

DATA FROM PREVIOUS STUDIES

Table B.1. Precision Summary of Study by ASTM (Kanhdal, 96)

Single Operator Multi-laboratory

1s d2s 1s d2s
ASTM Study Data Analysis
Stability 3206 4534 4006.1 11331
Stability COV ( percent) 12.26 17.34 15.32 43
Flow 3.11 4.40 4.40 12.44
Flow COV ( percent) 16.79 23.74 23.71 67.07
Bulk Specific Gravity 0.0084 0.012 0.0921 0.260
Bulk Specific Gravity COV (
0.32 0.45 3.46 9.77
percent)
Percent Air Voids 0.30 0.43 0.78 2.22
Percent Air Voids COV (
7.80 11.03 20.14 56.97
percent)

80
Table B.2. Georgia Laboratory Comparison Study (Siddiqui, 95)

Height Density Voids Stability Flow

Laboratory Location 3
(in.) (lb/ft ) ( percent) (lb) (0.01 in.)
District 2 Tennille, Ga. 2.55 154.4 4.3 2500 12
2.6 150.3 6.8 2240 12
2.51 155.6 3.6 3020 15
District 4 Tifton, Ga. 2.5 154.8 4.1 2880 13.1
2.5 152.9 5.3 2350 13.3
District 5 Jesup, Ga. 2.5 154.6 4.2 2200 15
2.5 154.3 4.4 2175 14.8
2.5 154.6 4.2 2275 13.6
District 7 Forest Park Ga. 2.562 153 5.2 2100 12
2.555 154.1 4.5 2460 13
2.54 154.3 4.4 2520 11
Producer 1 Macon Ga. 2.567 153.1 5.1 2150 10
2.574 153.6 4.8 2190 9
2.562 153.6 4.8 2340 10
Producer 2 Atlanta Ga. 2.56 152.6 5.4 2320 11
2.56 153.2 5.1 2470 13
2.56 152.8 5.3 2330 13
Producer 3 Doraville, Ga. 2.44 154.4 4.3 2200 9
2.5 153.6 4.8 2050 10
2.5 152.5 5.5 1950 10
Producer 4 Birmingham, Ala. 2.51 153 4.9 2400 13.5
2.5 157 2.9 2650 13.5
2.5 155 3.8 2250 12
Producer 5 Chattanooga, Tenn. 2.615 152.9 5.3 2550 11
2.615 151.6 6 2550 10
2.615 150.8 6.5 2525 12
Average (of all laboratories) 153.6 4.8 2371 12
Acceptable range for a given 152.1 to 1971 to
10 to 14
Laboratory 155.1 2771
Note: Values in bold are outside acceptable (95 percent) confidence range

81
 Table B.3. Utah-Marshall Study, Same Operator, Different Equipment at Various Laboratories (Siddiqui, 95)

Bulk Specific Gravity at Voids (%) at Asphalt VMA Filled (%) at Stability (lb) Asphalt Flow (0.01 in.) at
Asphalt Content Content Asphalt Content Content Asphalt Content
Laboratory 5.50% 6.00% 6.50% 5.50% 6.00% 6.50% 5.50% 6.00% 6.50% 5.50% 6.00% 6.50% 5.50% 6.00% 6.50%
District 1 2.29 2.29 2.30 3.3 2.4 1.5 78.7 84.7 90.6 2256 2064 1871 10 11 14
District 2 2.29 2.30 2.30 2.8 2.0 1.5 81.4 87.0 90.6 2477 2559 2216 9 9 12
District 3 2.29 2.30 2.30 3.3 2.0 1.5 78.7 87.0 90.8 2538 2642 2380 8 9 11
District 4 2.29 2.30 2.29 3.3 2.0 1.9 78.7 87.0 88.4 2663 2678 1825 10 11 14
District 5 2.30 2.31 2.30 2.8 2.6 1.5 81.9 89.4 90.6 2729 2620 2045 10 11 14
District 6 2.29 2.29 2.30 3.3 2.4 1.5 78.7 84.8 90.6 2367 2178 2023 8 11 12
Main lab 2.29 2.29 2.29 3.3 2.4 1.9 78.7 84.7 88.4 2767 1945 1826 9 11 12
Average 2.29 2.30 2.30 3.16 2.26 1.61 79.5 86.4 90.0 2542 2384 2027 9 10 13
Std. Dev. 0.004 0.008 0.005 0.24 0.25 0.20 1.4 1.8 1.1 190 310 211 1 1 1
Range 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.5 0.6 0.4 3.2 4.7 2.4 511 733 555 2 2 3

Table B.4. Utah-Marshall Study, Different Operator and Equipment at Various Laboratories (Siddiqui, 95)
82

Bulk Specific Gravity at Voids (%) at Asphalt VMA Filled (%) at Stability (lb) Asphalt Flow (0.01 in.) at
Asphalt Content Content Asphalt Content Content Asphalt Content
Laboratory 5.50% 6.00% 6.50% 5.50% 6.00% 6.50% 5.50% 6.00% 6.50% 5.50% 6.00% 6.50% 5.50% 6.00% 6.50%
District 1 2.28 2.29 2.29 3.3 2.1 1.5 78.3 86.2 90.6 2776 2691 2237 10 10 14
District 2 2.31 2.31 2.31 2.2 1.5 0.9 84.9 90.0 94.2 3528 3194 2494 16 17 19
District 3 2.28 2.28 2.28 3.5 2.7 1.9 77.6 83.0 88.2 3012 3000 2664 10 11 13
District 4 2.29 2.30 2.29 3.3 2.0 1.9 78.8 87.0 88.5 2450 2762 2109 7 10 12
District 5 2.29 2.30 2.30 3.4 2.1 1.7 78.6 86.6 89.5 2790 2455 2065 10 10 13
District 6 2.29 2.30 2.29 3.4 2.1 1.7 78.4 86.3 89.4 3561 3224 2572 7 8 11
Main lab 2.28 2.30 2.30 3.6 2.0 1.4 77.2 87.0 91.4 2166 2158 1921 14 14 17
Average 2.29 2.30 2.29 3.24 2.07 1.57 79.1 86.6 90.3 2898 2783 2295 11 11 14
Std. Dev. 0.011 0.010 0.010 0.472 0.350 0.350 2.6 2.0 2.1 518 391 284 3 3 3
Range 0.03 0.03 0.03 1.4 1.2 1 7.7 7.0 6.0 1395 1066 743 9 9 8

82
Table B.5. Canadian Mix Exchange,

Statistical Summary for All Data

Bulk Specific Gravity Stability (kN) Flow (0.25 mm.)
No. of Labs 31 Manual Mechanical Manual* Manual Mechanical Manual* Manual Mechanical Manual*

Mean 2.382 2.357 2.377 11.3 10.2 12.4 12 12 10

Standard
Deviation 0.017 0.031 0.019 1.8 2.5 1.9 3 2 1

95% confidence 2.348- 2.295- 2.339- 7.7 5.2- 8.6- 6- 8- 8-

Interval 2.416 2.419 2.415 14.9 15.2 16.2 18 18 12

Data 2.322- 2.273- 2.321- 5.7- 4.3- 8.2- 7- 8- 8-

Range 2.412 2.405 2.322 14.5 14.6 15.1 19 16 12

Statistical Summary for Selected Data (excludes data that were outside 95% confidence interval)
Bulk Specific Gravity Stability (kN) Flow (0.25 mm.)
No. of Labs 31 Manual Mechanical Manual* Manual Mechanical Manual* Manual Mechanical Manual*

Mean 2.384 2.361 2.379 11.5 10.4 12.5 12 12 10

Standard
Deviation 0.014 0.026 0.016 1.4 2.2 1.7 3 2 1

95% confidence 2.358- 2.309- 2.547- 8.7- 6- 9.1- 8- 8- 8-

Interval 2.41 2.413 2.411 14.3 14.8 13.9 16 16 12

Data 2.359- 2.299- 2.346- 8.6- 6- 9.2- 7- 8- 8-

Range 2.412 2.405 2.399 14.5 14.6 15.1 18 16 12
* specimens were manually compacted at participating laboratories but tested at a central
laboratory

83
 APPENDIX C

BUCKET MIXER INSTRUCTIONS

SETTING UP THE MIXER.

Install paddle arm so arm sits parallel to the plane to which the bucket can rotate
Secure paddle to paddle are so both back edges sit flush to the side of the bucket and blade
touches bottom of bucket

MIXING PROCEDURE
Weigh out aggregates and separate into two containers: course and fine
Nominal maximum aggregate size 9.5 mm
Fine aggregate 2.36 mm
Coarse aggregate 2.36 mm
Nominal maximum aggregate size 9.5 mm
Fine aggregate 4.75 mm
Coarse aggregate 4.75 mm
Heat 5-gallon bucket and paddle attached to paddle arm.
Allow enough time for bucket and paddle to achieve proper temperature
Remove bucket from oven and add coarse aggregate and asphalt to bucket
Place bucket in mixer basket and turn mixer on
Remove paddle and arm from oven and slide over rod
With aggregates moving the paddle should slide down until touching the bucket bottom.
Unlock mixer and tilt mixer away from paddle arm side.
Hold on to paddle arm and tilt bucket as far as possible without spilling contents
After 10 seconds lock bucket in upright position.
Remove fine aggregate from oven and introduce into the mix.
Pour fine aggregates into bucket with allowing aggregate to touch paddle or side of bucket
Unlock bucket and tilt
Rock bucket up-and-down to reduce segregation
After about 20 seconds when the aggregate looks thoroughly coated take a hot spatula, and as
the bucket is spinning, scrape all of the material out of the seam between the bottom and side
of the bucket.
Shut off mixer.
Slide paddle off of the rod and with a hot spoon scrape the asphalt off the paddle into the
bucket.
Remove bucket from mixer and tilt bucket onto its side and scrape circle of asphalt and fines
stuck to the center of the bucket bottom.
Scrape material out of seem again.
Dump bucket contents
Scrape entire side and bottom of bucket.

84
 APPENDIX D

Mix Design Charts

9.0

8.0

7.0

6.0
Air Voids, %

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Asphalt Content, %

Figure D.1. Percent Air Voids Versus Asphalt Content for Base 1
26700

21700

16700
Stability, N

11700

6700

1700
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Asphalt Content, %

Figure D.2. Stability Versus Asphalt Content for Base 1

85
 18.0

16.0

14.0

12.0
Flow, .25cm

10.0

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Asphalt Content, %

Figure D.3. Flow Versus Asphalt Content for Base 1

2.480

2.470

2.460
Unit Weight, kg/m^3

2.450

2.440

2.430

2.420

2.410

2.400
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Asphalt Content, %

Figure D.4. Unit Weight Versus Asphalt Content for Base 1

86
 13.0

12.5

12.0

11.5

11.0
VMA, %

10.5

10.0

9.5

9.0

8.5

8.0
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Asphalt Content, %

Figure D.5. Percent VMA Versus Asphalt Content for Base 1

90

80

70

60

50
VFA, %

40

30

20

10

0
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Asphalt Content, %

Figure D.6 Percent VMA Versus Asphalt Content for Base 1

87
 8

5
Air Voids, %

0
3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Asphalt Content, %

Figure D.7. Percent Air Voids Versus Asphalt Content for Base 2

14000

13500

13000

12500
Stability, N

12000

11500

11000

10500

10000
3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Asphalt Content, %

Figure D.8. Stability Versus Asphalt Content for Base 2

88
 14.0

12.0

10.0
Flow, .25mm

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0
3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Asphalt Content, %

Figure D.9. Flow Versus Asphalt Content for Base 2

2.50

2.45
Unit Weight, kg/m^3

2.40

2.35

2.30
3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Asphalt Content, %

Figure D.10. Unit Weight Versus Asphalt Content for Base 2

89
 13.0

12.5

12.0
VMA, %

11.5

11.0

10.5

10.0
3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Asphalt Content, %

Figure D.11. Percent VMA Versus Asphalt Content for Base 2

100
90
80
70
60
VFA, %

50
40
30
20
10
0
3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Asphalt Content, %

Figure D.12. Percent VFA Versus Asphalt Content for Base 2

90
 8.0

7.0

6.0
Air Voids, %

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0
4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
Asphalt Content, %

Figure D.13. Percent Air Voids Versus Asphalt Content for Wearing 1

14000

13000

12000
Stability, N

11000

10000

9000

8000
4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
Asphalt Content, %

Figure D.14. Stability Versus Asphalt Content for Wearing 1

91
 11.0

10.5

10.0
Flow, .25mm

9.5

9.0

8.5
4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
Asphalt Content, %

Figure D.15. Flow Versus Asphalt Content for Wearing 1

2.500

2.450
Unit Weight, kg/m^3

2.400

2.350

2.300
4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
Asphalt Content, %

Figure D.16. Unit Weight Versus Asphalt Content for Wearing 1

92
 14.500

14.000

13.500
VMA, %

13.000

12.500

12.000

11.500
4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
Asphalt Content, %

Figure D.17. Percent VMA Versus Asphalt Content for Wearing 1

90

80

70

60
VFA, %

50

40

30

20

10

0
4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
Asphalt Content, %

Figure D.18. Percent VFA Versus Asphalt Content for Wearing 1

93
 APPENDIX E
LABORATORY DATA
Table E.1. Compacted Base 1 Samples Raw Data
Sample Dry SSD Wt. in Stability Thick- Flow
Lab # Weight Water ness
(g) (g) (g) (N) (mm) (0.25 mm)
B1 8 37 1 4055.6 4071.8 2417.1 22900 88.0 15.0
District 1 B1 3 14 2 4054.4 4072.0 2410.6 24400 88.0 15.0
B1 1 8 3 4040.0 4066.3 2414.9 20500 90.0 16.5
B1 3 10 1 4048.8 4065.1 2411.7 19650 94.0 16.0
District 2 B1 3 5 2 4057.7 4067.6 2416.2 21700 94.0 14.2
B1 3 1 3 4062.3 4079.2 2419.1 22400 94.0 11.5
B1 3 19 1 4062.8 4075.5 2424.0 27650 94.0 13.4
District 3 B1 1 10 2 4066.4 4083.4 2424.4 23230 94.0 12.5
B1 1 4 3 4069.8 4086.2 2425.4 23120 93.0 20.5
B1 1 14 1 4064.2 4080.6 2424.0 22400 95.2 15.5
District 4 B1 8 32 2 4060.8 4077.4 2417.5 23200 95.2 17.0
B1 2 13 3 4057.1 4073.4 2419.5 26400 95.2 20.0
B1 1 9 1 4062.7 4089.9 2407.4 11600 97.0 10.5
District 5 B1 2 10 2 4077.7 4113.3 2420.0 11750 98.5 11.5
B1 8 36 3 4057.9 4087.1 2410.7 11400 97.5 11.8
B1 3 4 1 4063.7 4075.1 2413.1 18400 92.0 13.0
District 6 B1 2 3 2 4056.5 4074.6 2411.1 18000 92.0 13.5
B1 2 18 3 4070.8 4086.1 2413.7 23200 92.0 20.0
B1 3 8 1 4056.0 4075.9 2412.8 17900 94.0 13.4
District 7 B1 3 24 2 4066.7 4083.7 2420.6 19500 94.0 15.8
B1 3 18 3 4068.8 4085.2 2428.1 20600 94.0 13.0
B1 1 15 1 4063.4 4096.0 2407.7 14400 98.0 13.0
District 8 B1 2 6 2 4073.6 4113.0 2412.0 14800 98.0 14.0
B1 3 17 3 4075.7 4105.9 2412.6 13400 90.0 11.0
B1 2 15 1 4062.1 4075.8 2422.2 22000 93.0 19.0
District 9 B1 2 2 2 4063.7 4081.4 2415.0 24800 93.0 16.0
B1 3 12 3 4051.3 4066.3 2425.5 26400 95.0 21.5
B1 1 12 1 4060.1 4072.6 2415.8 21000 94.0 15.5
District 10 B1 3 16 2 4069.8 4081.2 2413.3 25500 94.0 14.0
B1 3 21 3 4069.5 4079.8 2419.6 28600 94.0 15.8
B1 1 2 1 4075.6 4089.2 2429.2 20000 93.0 12.0
Central 11 B1 2 14 2 4076.2 4085.9 2432.2 20500 93.0 13.0
B1 8 38 3 4054.9 4063.8 2419.0 21900 92.0 13.0
B1 3 13 1 4068.4 4088.6 2415.5 14400 95.2 15.5
Greer 12 B1 2 12 2 4037.1 4054.1 2395.5 16800 95.2 16.0
B1 8 34 3 4060.3 4077.5 2410.3 16800 95.2 16.5
B1 2 4 1 3997.1 4024.6 2362.4 16400 95.3 15.6
WV
13 B1 1 11 2 3998.3 4018.5 2365.6 17000 93.7 12.8
Paving
B1 2 11 3 3991.4 4018.5 2356.0 17600 95.3 19.2
B1 9 15 1 4072.2 4084.9 2421.7 18772 94.0 17.0
WVU 14 B1 9 12 2 4071.9 4082.3 2416.8 18238 94.5 15.5
B1 9 14 3 4068.2 4083.0 2417.8 18127 95.0 14.0

94
Table E.2. Compacted Base 2 Samples Raw Data

Sample Dry SSD Wt. in Stability Thick- Flow

Lab # Weight Water ness
(g) (g) (g) (N) (mm) (0.25 mm)
B2 8 1 1 1192.4 1195.1 702.7 13200 56.0 9.0
District 1 B2 7 2 2 1203.0 1205.3 711.2 12800 57.0 11.5
B2 7 22 3 1201.4 1203.4 709.9 14200 56.0 12.0
B2 7 15 1 1191.4 1192.7 707.3 14990 61.5 10.5
District 2 B2 7 18 2 1193.9 1196.5 708.5 13990 61.5 12.0
B2 7 6 3 1197.0 1198.7 708.5 13580 61.5 11.0
B2 7 25 1 1195.4 1201.3 691.3 9000 65.0 8.6
District 3 B2 7 9 2 1199.8 1204.3 706.0 12000 67.0 8.8
B2 7 1 3 1187.2 1209.9 699.5 13340 61.0 9.5
B2 7 17 1 1202.9 1204.0 714.8 13600 63.5 11.5
District 4 B2 6 24 2 1199.7 1201.1 709.6 14400 63.5 11.5
B2 6 16 3 1194.8 1196.5 709.0 14400 63.5 12.5
B2 7 16 1 1195.2 1197.7 706.3 10050 62.5 12.0
District 5 B2 7 4 2 1201.5 1203.3 710.0 12200 62.5 12.5
B2 7 14 3 1198.5 1200.0 707.1 13000 62.0 10.5
B2 7 12 1 1195.9 1198.5 705.6 13100 61.0 10.0
District 6 B2 8 4 2 1202.5 1204.0 710.6 12200 61.0 13.0
B2 8 3 3 1194.0 1195.4 704.2 14400 61.0 16.5
B2 6 20 1 1199.6 1201.2 712.4 13650 61.0 12.5
District 7 B2 7 10 2 1198.6 1200.1 707.9 13175 61.0 12.5
B2 6 19 3 1200.3 1202.0 711.2 13500 72.6 11.6
B2 6 17 1 1198.5 1200.8 709.3 12000 62.0 14.0
District 8 B2 6 23 2 1197.2 1199.1 709.4 11750 62.0 12.0
B2 7 20 3 1202.0 1203.3 709.6 12800 62.0 14.0
B2 7 7 1 1196.9 1198.6 707.7 13600 60.0 10.5
District 9 B2 7 24 2 1198.2 1200.0 710.5 14600 60.0 10.5
B2 6 25 3 1199.1 1201.7 711.3 13600 60.0 10.5
B2 7 11 1 1195.0 1196.2 701.3 15400 62.0 10.0
District 10 B2 7 21 2 1181.3 1185.0 693.8 18900 64.0 8.8
B2 6 18 3 1193.7 1194.8 705.4 16800 61.0 9.0
B2 7 8 1 1201.1 1202.7 712.4 12500 62.0 12.5
Central 11 B2 7 19 2 1197.0 1198.9 708.9 12150 62.0 12.0
B2 8 2 3 1208.9 1209.5 718.8 13400 62.0 10.5
B2 7 23 1 1194.0 1194.9 706.0 11000 63.5 11.5
Greer 12 B2 8 5 2 1190.1 1193.0 698.6 10000 63.5 11.5
B2 7 3 3 1196.3 1198.8 706.2 11400 63.5 14.0
B2 6 21 1 1199.8 1201.3 702.1 11000 65.1 12.0
WV
13 B2 7 5 2 1199.0 1201.2 707.3 13500 66.7 11.8
Paving
B2 7 13 3 1197.0 1198.4 706.7 13000 63.5 13.2
B2 9 8 1 1195.7 1197.9 705.6 14012 62.5 11.5
WVU 14 B2 9 6 2 1195.6 1197.6 705.5 15747 62.0 10.3
B2 9 7 3 1195.0 1197.2 708.0 14568 62.0 10.3

95
Table E.3. Compacted Wearing 1 Samples Raw Data

Sample Dry SSD Wt. in Stability Thick- Flow

Lab # Weight Water ness
(g) (g) (g) (N) (mm) (0.25 mm)
W1 6 6 1 1191.6 1193.3 694.8 13000 57.0 10.5
District 1 W1 4 31 2 1202.1 1203.4 700.4 12900 58.0 8.5
W1 5 1 3 1203.5 1204.8 723.4 13000 57.0 9.0
W1 4 10 1 1202.5 1203.1 704.1 13200 62.0 9.4
District 2 W1 5 9 2 1203.9 1204.8 706.6 13400 62.0 10.4
W1 6 2 3 1210.0 1210.9 706.0 12620 62.0 9.0
W1 6 7 1 1211.6 1211.7 701.7 12380 64.0 12.4
District 3 W1 4 7 2 1207.6 1224.2 685.6 6020 64.0 14.8
W1 6 13 3 1209.2 1233.3 687.7 4770 68.0 12.6
W1 5 3 1 1208.7 1209.5 707.7 15200 63.5 10.0
District 4 W1 3 28 2 1206.1 1206.7 705.7 14000 63.5 11.0
W1 5 2 3 1207.5 1208.4 706.1 13800 63.5 11.5
W1 6 10 1 1197.0 1198.0 692.1 11600 63.5 10.5
District 5 W1 4 15 2 1208.9 1209.8 700.1 11750 64.0 11.5
W1 5 7 3 1210.4 1211.3 703.7 11400 64.0 11.8
W1 4 6 1 1210.3 1211.4 702.7 12700 63.0 9.5
District 6 W1 4 4 2 1206.8 1208.0 699.5 12400 63.0 11.5
W1 4 12 3 1205.2 1206.1 699.7 12900 62.0 13.0
W1 4 5 1 1210.7 1211.7 707.2 12400 63.0 18.5
District 7 W1 4 19 2 1208.0 1209.0 704.4 12300 63.0 10.5
W1 4 25 3 1206.4 1207.2 705.5 12050 63.0 10.0
W1 3 27 1 1208.9 1210.5 704.4 11050 63.5 9.5
District 8 W1 4 32 2 1209.6 1210.9 702.6 11050 63.5 9.5
W1 6 8 3 1212.7 1214.0 706.4 11600 63.5 11.0
W1 4 28 1 1207.3 1208.1 699.9 13000 60.2 9.5
District 9 W1 6 5 2 1208.3 1209.2 703.7 12600 60.2 9.5
W1 4 33 3 1209.8 1210.5 704.4 14000 60.2 10.5
W1 6 15 1 1202.1 1203.3 694.4 15600 64.0 8.8
District 10 W1 4 14 2 1202.6 1203.9 695.6 15400 64.0 10.0
W1 4 23 3 1210.4 1211.6 698.4 17200 64.0 10.0
W1 4 2 1 1212.5 1213.3 707.3 12800 63.0 10.5
Central 11 W1 4 17 2 1208.1 1208.7 705.9 12100 63.0 10.0
W1 5 12 3 1209.4 1209.9 707.9 12600 63.0 10.5
W1 4 8 1 1201.9 1202.4 698.3 12200 63.5 10.0
Greer 12 W1 4 13 2 1204.3 1205.1 701.3 11800 63.5 9.5
W1 4 30 3 1205.7 1206.7 704.4 11600 63.5 8.5
W1 5 13 1 1206.9 1208.8 695.1 10400 66.7 13.9
WV
13 W1 4 21 2 1208.5 1209.7 699.2 10750 65.1 12.8
Paving
W1 5 4 3 1205.2 1207.0 693.3 11200 66.7 13.4
W1 9 3 1 1200.0 1200.4 702.5 14457 62.0 10.0
WVU 14 W1 9 2 2 1203.8 1204.9 702.1 13678 63.5 9.5
W1 9 5 3 1208.3 1209.0 706.5 13789 63.0 9.5

96
Table E.4. Base 1 Maximum Theoretical Specific Gravity Samples Raw Data

Asphalt+
Pycnometer +
Sample Dry Weight Pycnometer+
Lab # Water
Water
(g) (g) (g)
B1R 2 20 1 4090.4 3926.7 1433.8
District 1
B1R 3 25 2 4067.2 3909.1 1433.8
B1R 1 1 2 4064.1 3839.7 1359.8
District 2
B1R 2 5 1 4068.5 3842.5 1359.8
2013.3 2654.9 1429.3
B1R 1 6 1
2067.7 2690.4 1429.3
District 3
2209.7 2773.1 1429.3
B1R 3 11 2
1870.7 2574.1 1429.3
B1R 3 6 2 4014.4 3842.6 1396.6
District 4
B1R 8 33 1 4006.6 3838.2 1396.6
2251.6 2760.1 1386.1
B1R 1 7 1
1821.2 2497.7 1386.1
District 5
2347.5 2821.4 1386.1
B1R 8 35 2
1734.2 2494.6 1386.1
B1R 2 8 1 4064.1 3864.2 1387.2
District 6
B1R 2 19 2 4070.9 3870.3 1387.2
B1R 2 7 2 4063.3 3865.2 1388.6
District 7
B1R 3 7 1 4004.7 3821.6 1388.6
8 B1R 2 9 1 4089.5 5229.5 2735.0
District
B1R 3 22 2 4094.1 5230.4 2735.0
B1R 2 17 2 4061 5289.7 2812.4
District 9
B1R 3 15 1 4075.1 5298.6 2812.4
B1R 3 2 1 4066.4 3880.6 1402.6
District 10
B1R 3 3 2 4074.8 3885.3 1402.6
B1R 1 3 1 4083.6 3809.7 1321.5
Central 11
B1R 2 1 2 4074.4 3805.9 1321.5
B1R 1 5 1 4058.7 3828.4 1355.7
Greer 12
B1R 3 9 2 4081.8 3843.9 1355.7
WV B1R 1 13 2 4039.7 5454.4 2988.8
13
Paving B1R 3 23 1 4061.6 5466.9 2988.8
B1R 9 11 1 4061.1 9956.2 7480.2
WVU 14
B1R 9 13 2 4087.1 9970.8 7480.2

97
Table E.5. Base 2 Maximum Theoretical Specific Gravity Samples Raw Data

Asphalt+
Pycnometer +
Sample Dry Weight Pycnometer+
Lab # Water
Water
(g) (g) (g)
B2R 8 26 1 2091.6 2694.2 1433.8
District 1
B2R 8 8 2 2088.8 2694.1 1433.8
B2R 8 28 2 2087.3 2620.3 1359.8
District 2
B2R 8 21 1 2088.6 2621.0 1359.8
B2R 8 25 2 2089.7 2690.7 1429.3
District 3
B2R 8 15 1 2090.5 2691.6 1429.3
B2R 8 16 1 2083.5 2653.3 1396.6
District 4
B2R 8 31 2 2085.8 2654.2 1396.6
B2R 8 22 1 2086.6 2648.0 1386.1
District 5
B2R 8 29 2 2087.7 2648.5 1386.1
B2R 8 6 1 2091.4 2649.6 1387.2
District 6
B2R 8 14 2 2091.7 2649.3 1387.2
B2R 8 12 2 2087.7 2647.6 1388.6
District 7
B2R 8 27 1 2085.4 2646.2 1388.6
B2R 8 13 1 2093.9 2631.8 1367.5
District 8
B2R 8 19 2 2088.9 2629.0 1367.5
B2R 8 7 1 2088.5 2665.9 1406.2
District 9
B2R 8 17 2 2090.0 2668.1 1406.2
B2R 8 23 2 2089.1 2662.4 1402.6
District 10
B2R 8 30 1 2091.5 2664.0 1402.6
B2R 8 9 1 2086.2 2580.2 1321.5
Central 11
B2R 8 10 2 2093.0 2583.5 1321.5
B2R 8 20 1 2077.6 2609.7 1355.7
Greer 12
B2R 8 24 2 2077.3 2609.2 1355.7
B2R 8 18 2 2089.1 2755.3 1494.4
WV Paving 13
B2R 8 11 1 2089.9 2754.6 1494.4
B2R 9 9 1 2083.0 8736.6 7480.2
WVU 14
B2R 9 10 2 2084.7 8738.6 7480.2

98
Table E.6. Wearing 1 Maximum Theoretical Specific Gravity Samples Raw Data

Sample Dry Asphalt+ Pycnometer+

Weight Pycnometer+ Water
Lab #
Water
(g) (g) (g)
W1R 5 11 1 1200.5 1430.1 1433.8
District 1
W1R 4 29 2 1218.0 1449.1 1433.8
W1R 5 15 2 1211.3 2084.8 1359.8
District 2
W1R 6 9 1 1212.2 2085.1 1359.8
W1R 4 3 1 1211.6 2153.3 1429.3
District 3
W1R 4 18 2 1219.8 2158.1 1429.3
W1R 6 4 2 1211.4 2120.3 1396.6
District 4
W1R 6 12 1 1216.0 2122.0 1396.6
W1R 4 26 1 1213.3 2112.9 1386.1
District 5
W1R 5 8 1 1209.7 2110.7 1386.1
W1R 4 24 1 1212.0 2111.2 1387.2
District 6
W1R 5 5 2 1214.8 2113.1 1387.2
W1R 6 11 2 1213.1 2111.6 1388.6
District 7
W1R 3 26 1 1216.8 2112.7 1388.6
W1R 6 14 2 1213.2 2092.7 1367.5
District 8
W1R 4 20 1 1213.9 2093.0 1367.5
W1R 4 11 2 1212.4 2130.5 1406.2
District 9
W1R 4 9 1 1215.7 2132.7 1406.2
W1R 6 3 2 1211.4 2125.9 1402.6
District 10
W1R 5 14 1 1212.6 2125.8 1402.6
W1R 6 1 2 1211.2 2045.7 1321.5
Central 11
W1R 5 6 1 1209.0 2045.4 1321.5
W1R 4 22 1 1204.5 2074.7 1355.7
Greer 12
W1R 4 1 2 1207.7 2076.8 1355.7
WV W1R 4 16 1 1201.8 2212.9 1494.4
13
Paving W1R 5 10 2 1211.6 2217.6 1494.4
W1R 9 1 1 1212.8 8206.4 7480.2
WVU 14
W1R 9 4 2 1210.2 8204.1 7480.2

99
 Table E.7. Questionnaire Results

Experience Oven Hammer Calibration Marshall Hammer Marshall Stability Hammer Calibrated
(Yrs) Temp. (oC) Calibrated Verified Brand Brand to Manual Hammer
District 1 1 148.9 Jun-90 May-98 Pine Inst. Pine Inst. No
District 2 0.25 148.9 Apr-98 May-98 Pine Inst. Pine Inst. No
District 3 20 157.2 Apr-98 Apr-98 Pine Inst. Pine Inst. No
District 4 8 155.0 - - Pine Inst. Pine Inst. No
District 5 3 145.0 Jun-91 Jun-98 Pine Inst. Pine Inst. No
District 6 12 148.9 Jun-90 Jun-98 Pine Inst. Pine Inst. No
District 7 7 145.0 - Jul-98 Pine Inst. Pine Inst. No
District 8 10 145.0 Apr-98 Apr-98 Pine Inst. Pine Inst. No
District 9 0.667 144.4 Aug-90 Nov-97 Pine Inst. Pine Inst. No
District 10 - - - - - - No
Central Base 1 8 144.0 - Mar-98 Pine Inst. Pine Inst. Yes - 75 Blows
10
0

Base 2 8 142.0
Wearing 8 146.0
1
Greer 20 146.0 Mar-98 Mar-98 Pine Inst. Pine Inst. No
WV Paving 5 154.4 Jul-95 Mar-98 Pine Inst. Pine Inst. No

WVU 1 147 Jun-91 May-98 Pine Inst. Pine Inst. No

 APPENDIX F

LABORATORY INSTRUCTIONS, QUESTIONNAIRE AND DATA

SHEETS

101
 John P. Zaniewski
West Virginia University
P.O. Box 6103
Morgantown, WV. 26506
(304) 293-3031 ext. 648
District ______
Even though the SUPERPAVE procedures will eventually replace the Marshall
procedure for mix design and quality control the West Virginia DOH will continue to use the
Marshall method in the interim. For quality control, the inter-laboratory precision and
variance in the Marshall method need to be quantified for statistical based quality control
methods. WVU has a DOH contract to assist with measuring variability in the Marshall
method. This requires several labs to test identical samples.
All ten West Virginia DOH district laboratories will participate in the study to provide
the most reliable results possible. In addition, the headquarters, the WVU laboratory, and two
contractors will participate in the study. Each laboratory will test samples of Wearing 1, Base 1
and Base 2. The Wearing 1 and Base 2 will be compacted in 4-inch molds and Base 1 will be
compacted in 6-inch molds. One test will be run at each laboratory consisting of three
samples each for the stability, flow, and bulk specific gravity procedures. For maximum
theoretical specific gravity two samples will be used.
One person with practiced knowledge of Marshall testing procedures must be
designated to do all testing at each lab. All tests for each asphalt concrete type should be
performed in a single day. All tests should be performed according to standard West Virginia
DOH/AASHTO testing procedures. If testing procedures are properly followed but unusual
results are found the test is not to be re-run. Record the actual data.
The compaction temperature for all of the samples is 142-157 C (287.6-296.6 F).
Each sample is coded with a number. The first two digits signifies which mix type the
container holds: Base 1 = B1, Base 2 = B2, and Wearing 1 = W1. The following digit signifies
which day the mix was fabricated and the next two digits signify the order at which the mix
was made that day. For Base 2 mixes, two of the containers have an R written on them.
The maximum theoretical specific gravity test should be performed on these specimens and
the other three should be compacted. For Wearing 1 and Base 1 the two samples chosen for
the maximum theoretical specific gravity test and three samples chosen for compaction should
be randomly selected.
Please fill out the questionnaire attached to this sheet and record all data on the
attached form. We will do all calculations. Once all testing has been completed and data has
been recorded, photocopy each worksheet, graph and questionnaire, then fax them to John
Zaniewski at (304) 293-7109 and send the original to the above address.
Your participation in this study is greatly appreciated. If there are any questions or
comments about the study please feel free to call me or the inter-laboratory study coordinator,
Mike Hughes at (304) 293-3031 ext. 383.

Thank you again for your participation.

Sincerely,

John P. Zaniewski
West Virginia University

102
QUESTIONNAIRE
Please supply an answer for each question.

Name of technician performing tests:_______________________

Job Title:______________________

Years of Marshall test experience?_______________

When was the last time the Marshall Stability and Flow apparatus was

calibrated?_____________________________

When was the last time the Marshall Stability and Flow apparatus calibration was verified?

_______________________________

What is the brand name of the Marshall Stability and Flow apparatus?
______________________________

What is the brand name of the Marshall Hammer?______________________________

Has the Marshall Hammer ever been correlated to the manual compaction hammer?_____

If yes, when, and how many blows is the automatic hammer set at?___________

___________________________________

At what temperature was the oven set to reheat the samples?______________________

How long were the samples heated in the oven?

Base 1 Compacted: __________________ Base 1 Rice: __________________

Base 2 compacted: ___________________ Base 2 Rice: __________________

Wearing 1 Compacted: _______________ Wearing 1 Rice: _______________

103
West Virginia University
Marshall Variability Study

Lab

Technician: Date
Completed:

Base 1

Maximum Theoretical Specific

Gravity (AASHTO T-209)
Sample No: Sample No:

Sample Weight Sample Weight

Pycnometer+Sample+Water Pycnometer+Sample+Water

Pycnometer+Water Pycnometer+Water

Bulk Specific Gravity (AASHTO

T-166)
Specimen No.:

Weight in Air

Saturated Surface Dry Weight

Weight in Water

Marshall Stability and Flow

(AASHTO T-245)
Specimen Thickness (mm)

Measured Stability (N)

Flow (0.25 mm)

104
West Virginia University
Marshall Variability Study

Lab

Technician: Date Completed:

Base 2

Maximum Theoretical Specific

Gravity (AASHTO T-209)
Sample No: Sample No:

Sample Weight Sample Weight

Pycnometer+Sample+Water Pycnometer+Sample+Water

Pycnometer+Water Pycnometer+Water

Bulk Specific Gravity (AASHTO

T-166)
Specimen No.:

Weight in Air

Saturated Surface Dry Weight

Weight in Water

Marshall Stability and Flow

(AASHTO T-245)
Specimen Thickness (mm)

Measured Stability (N)

Flow (0.25 mm)

105
West Virginia University
Marshall Variability Study

Lab

Technician: Date Completed:

Wearing 1

Maximum Theoretical Specific

Gravity (AASHTO T-209)
Sample No: Sample No:

Sample Weight Sample Weight

Pycnometer+Sample+Water Pycnometer+Sample+Water

Pycnometer+Water Pycnometer+Water

Bulk Specific Gravity (AASHTO

T-166)
Specimen No.:

Weight in Air

Saturated Surface Dry Weight

Weight in Water

Marshall Stability and Flow

(AASHTO T-245)
Specimen Thickness (mm)

Measured Stability (N)

Flow (0.25 mm)

106
 APPENDIX G
VARIABILITY ANALYSIS TABLES

Table G.1. Base 1, Maximum Theoretical Specific Gravity, Within-Laboratory Average

and Variance

Laboratory Sample Sample Average Within-

# 1 2 Laboratory
Variance
District 1 2.561 2.555 2.558 0.0000180
District 2 2.565 2.566 2.566 0.0000000
District 3 2.560 2.563 2.562 0.0000050
District 4 2.560 2.560 2.560 0.0000000
District 5 2.566 2.654 2.610 0.0038720
District 6 2.561 2.564 2.563 0.0000050
District 7 2.561 2.548 2.555 0.0000840
District 8 2.564 2.561 2.563 0.0000050
District 9 2.564 2.565 2.565 0.0000000
District 10 2.560 2.559 2.560 0.0000000
Central 11 2.560 2.563 2.562 0.0000050
Greer 12 2.559 2.561 2.560 0.0000020
WV Paving 13 2.566 2.565 2.566 0.0000000
WVU 14 2.562 2.560 2.561 0.0000020

Table G.2. Base 2, Maximum Theoretical Specific Gravity, Within-Laboratory Average

and Variance

Laboratory Sample Sample Average Within-

1 2 Laboratory
Variance
District 1 2.516 2.521 2.519 0.0000120
District 2 2.525 2.524 2.525 0.0000000
District 3 2.523 2.524 2.524 0.0000000
District 4 2.520 2.518 2.519 0.0000020
District 5 2.530 2.530 2.530 0.0000000
District 6 2.523 2.521 2.522 0.0000020
District 7 2.519 2.519 2.519 0.0000000
District 8 2.524 2.525 2.525 0.0000000
District 9 2.520 2.524 2.522 0.0000080
District 10 2.519 2.520 2.520 0.0000000
Central 11 2.521 2.519 2.520 0.0000020
Greer 12 2.523 2.522 2.523 0.0000010
WV Paving 13 2.522 2.519 2.521 0.0000040
WVU 14 2.520 2.523 2.522 0.0000050

107
Table G.3. Wearing 1, Maximum Theoretical Specific Gravity, Within-Laboratory
Average and Variance

Laboratory Sample Sample Average Within-

1 2 Laboratory
Variance
District 1
District 2 2.491 2.490 2.491 0.0000000
District 3 2.485 2.484 2.485 0.0000000
District 4 2.484 2.479 2.482 0.0000120
District 5 2.494 2.494 2.494 0.0000000
District 6 2.484 2.485 2.485 0.0000000
District 7 2.475 2.470 2.473 0.0000120
District 8 2.486 2.485 2.486 0.0000010
District 9 2.484 2.485 2.485 0.0000000
District 10 2.482 2.478 2.480 0.0000080
Central 11 2.487 2.492 2.490 0.0000120
Greer 12 2.481 2.482 2.482 0.0000010
WV Paving 13 2.487 2.481 2.484 0.0000180
WVU 14 2.492 2.489 2.491 0.0000050

Table G.4. Base 1, Stability, Within-Laboratory Average and Variance

Laboratory Sample Sample Sample Average Within-

1 2 3 Laboratory
Variance
District 1 26300 28100 22600 25700 7860000
District 2 20000 22100 22800 21600 2120000
District 3 28200 23700 24000 25300 6330000
District 4 22400 23200 26400 24000 4480000
District 5 11300 11200 10900 11100 40000
District 6 19500 19100 24600 21100 9400000
District 7 18300 19900 21000 19700 1840000
District 8 13800 14200 14700 14200 200000
District 9 22900 25800 26700 25100 3940000
District 10 21400 26000 29200 25500 15370000
Central 11 20800 21300 23200 21800 1600000
Greer 12 14400 16800 16800 16000 1920000
WV Paving 13 16400 17500 17600 17200 440000
WVU 14 19100 18600 18300 18700 160000

108
Table G.5. Base 2, Stability, Within-Laboratory Average and Variance

Laboratory Sample Sample Sample Average Within-

1 2 3 Laboratory
Variance
District 1 16400 15400 17600 16500 1210000
District 2 15700 14700 14300 14900 520000
District 3 8600 11000 14300 11300 8190000
District 4 13600 14400 14400 14100 210000
District 5 10400 12600 13500 12200 2540000
District 6 14000 13100 15400 14200 1340000
District 7 14600 14100 10900 13200 4030000
District 8 12500 12200 13300 12700 320000
District 9 15000 16100 15000 15400 400000
District 10 16000 18700 18000 17600 1960000
Central 11 13000 12600 13900 13200 440000
Greer 12 11000 10000 11400 10800 520000
WV Paving 13 10600 12600 13000 12100 1650000
WVU 14 14400 16400 15200 15300 1010000

Table G.6. Wearing 1 Stability, Within-Laboratory Average and Variance

Laboratory Sample Sample Sample Average Within-

1 2 3 Laboratory
Variance
District 1 15600 15000 15600 15400 120000
District 2 13700 13900 13100 13600 170000
District 3 12300 6000 4300 7500 17760000
District 4 15200 14000 13800 14300 570000
District 5 11600 11600 11300 11500 30000
District 6 12800 12500 13400 12900 210000
District 7 12500 12400 12200 12400 20000
District 8 11100 11100 11600 11300 80000
District 9 14200 13700 15300 14400 670000
District 10 15400 15200 17000 15900 970000
Central 11 12900 12200 12700 12600 130000
Greer 12 12200 11800 11600 11900 90000
WV Paving 13 9700 10300 10400 10100 140000
WVU 14 15000 13700 13900 14200 490000

109
Table G.7. Base 1, Flow, Within-Laboratory Average and Variance

Laboratory Sample Sample Sample Average Within-

1 2 3 Laboratory
Variance
District 1 15.0 15.0 16.5 15.5 0.75
District 2 16.0 14.2 11.5 13.9 5.13
District 3 13.4 12.5 20.5 15.5 19.20
District 4 15.5 17.0 20.0 17.5 5.25
District 5 10.5 11.5 11.8 11.3 0.44
District 6 13.0 13.5 20.0 15.5 15.25
District 7 13.4 15.8 13.0 14.1 2.21
District 8 13.0 14.0 11.0 12.7 2.33
District 9 19.0 16.0 21.5 18.8 7.58
District 10 15.5 14.0 15.8 15.1 0.90
Central 11 12.0 13.0 13.0 12.7 0.33
Greer 12 15.5 16.0 16.5 16.0 0.25
WV Paving 13 15.6 12.8 19.2 15.9 10.29
WVU 14 17.0 15.5 14.0 15.5 2.25

Table G.8. Base 2, Flow, Within-Laboratory Average and Variance

Laboratory Sample Sample Sample Average Within-

1 2 3 Laboratory
Variance
District 1 9.0 11.5 12.0 10.8 2.58
District 2 10.5 12.0 11.0 11.2 0.58
District 3 8.6 8.8 9.5 9.0 0.22
District 4 11.5 11.5 12.5 11.8 0.33
District 5 12.0 12.5 10.5 11.7 1.08
District 6 10.0 13.0 16.5 13.2 10.58
District 7 12.5 12.5 11.6 12.2 0.27
District 8 14.0 12.0 14.0 13.3 1.33
District 9 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 0.00
District 10 10.0 8.8 9.0 9.3 0.44
Central 11 12.5 12.0 10.5 11.7 1.08
Greer 12 11.5 11.5 14.0 12.3 2.08
WV Paving 13 12.0 11.8 13.2 12.3 0.57
WVU 14 11.5 10.3 10.3 10.7 0.52

110
Table G.9. Wearing 1, Flow, Within-Laboratory Average and Variance

Laboratory Sample Sample Sample Average Within-

1 2 3 Laboratory
Variance
District 1 10.5 8.5 9.0 9.3 1.08
District 2 9.4 10.4 9.0 9.6 0.52
District 3 12.4 14.8 12.6 13.3 1.77
District 4 10.0 11.0 11.5 10.8 0.58
District 5 10.5 11.5 11.8 11.3 0.44
District 6 9.5 11.5 13.0 11.3 3.08
District 7 18.5 10.5 10.0 13.0 22.75
District 8 9.5 9.5 11.0 10.0 0.75
District 9 9.5 9.5 10.5 9.8 0.33
District 10 8.8 10.0 10.0 9.6 0.52
Central 11 10.5 10.0 10.5 10.3 0.08
Greer 12 10.0 9.5 8.5 9.3 0.58
WV Paving 13 13.9 12.8 13.4 13.4 0.30
WVU 14 10.0 9.5 9.5 9.7 0.08

Table G.10. Base 1, Bulk Specific Gravity, Within-Laboratory Average and Variance

Laboratory Sample Sample Sample Average Within-

1 2 3 Laboratory
Variance
District 1 2.451 2.440 2.446 2.446 0.000030
District 2 2.449 2.457 2.447 2.451 0.000028
District 3 2.460 2.451 2.451 2.454 0.000027
District 4 2.453 2.446 2.453 2.451 0.000016
District 5 2.415 2.408 2.421 2.415 0.000042
District 6 2.445 2.439 2.434 2.439 0.000030
District 7 2.439 2.445 2.455 2.446 0.000065
District 8 2.407 2.395 2.407 2.403 0.000048
District 9 2.457 2.439 2.469 2.455 0.000228
District 10 2.451 2.440 2.451 2.447 0.000040
Central 11 2.455 2.465 2.465 2.462 0.000033
Greer 12 2.432 2.434 2.435 2.434 0.000002
WV Paving 13 2.405 2.419 2.401 2.408 0.000089
WVU 14 2.448 2.445 2.443 2.445 0.000006

111
Table G.11. Base 2, Bulk Specific Gravity, Within-Laboratory Average and Variance

Laboratory Sample Sample Sample Average Within-

1 2 3 Laboratory
Variance
District 1 2.422 2.435 2.434 2.430 0.000052
District 2 2.454 2.447 2.442 2.448 0.000036
District 3 2.344 2.408 2.326 2.359 0.001857
District 4 2.459 2.441 2.451 2.450 0.000081
District 5 2.432 2.436 2.432 2.433 0.000005
District 6 2.426 2.437 2.431 2.431 0.000030
District 7 2.454 2.435 2.446 2.445 0.000091
District 8 2.438 2.445 2.435 2.439 0.000026
District 9 2.438 2.448 2.445 2.444 0.000026
District 10 2.415 2.405 2.439 2.420 0.000305
Central 11 2.450 2.443 2.464 2.452 0.000114
Greer 12 2.442 2.407 2.429 2.426 0.000313
WV Paving 13 2.403 2.428 2.434 2.422 0.000270
WVU 14 2.429 2.430 2.443 2.434 0.000061

Table G.12. Wearing 1, Bulk Specific Gravity, Within-Laboratory Average and

Variance

Laboratory Sample Sample Sample Average Within-

1 2 3 Laboratory
Variance
District 1 2.390 2.390 2.500 2.427 0.004033
District 2 2.410 2.416 2.397 2.408 0.000094
District 3 2.376 2.242 2.216 2.278 0.007372
District 4 2.409 2.407 2.404 2.407 0.000006
District 5 2.366 2.372 2.385 2.374 0.000094
District 6 2.379 2.373 2.380 2.377 0.000014
District 7 2.400 2.394 2.405 2.400 0.000030
District 8 2.389 2.380 2.389 2.386 0.000027
District 9 2.376 2.390 2.390 2.385 0.000065
District 10 2.362 2.366 2.359 2.362 0.000012
Central 11 2.396 2.403 2.409 2.403 0.000042
Greer 12 2.384 2.390 2.400 2.391 0.000065
WV Paving 13 2.349 2.367 2.346 2.354 0.000129
WVU 14 2.410 2.394 2.405 2.403 0.000067

112
Table G.13. Base 1, Percent Air Voids, Within-Laboratory Average and Variance

Within-
Laboratory Sample Sample Sample Laboratory
1 2 3 Average Variance
District 1 4.2 4.6 4.4 4.4 0.040
District 2 4.6 4.2 4.6 4.5 0.053
District 3 4.0 4.3 4.3 4.2 0.030
District 4 4.2 4.5 4.2 4.3 0.030
District 5 7.5 7.7 7.2 7.5 0.063
District 6 4.6 4.8 5.0 4.8 0.040
District 7 4.5 4.3 3.9 4.2 0.093
District 8 6.1 6.6 6.1 6.3 0.083
District 9 4.2 4.9 3.7 4.3 0.363
District 10 4.3 4.7 4.3 4.4 0.053
Central 11 4.2 3.8 3.8 3.9 0.053
Greer 12 5.0 4.9 4.9 4.9 0.003
WV Paving 13 6.3 5.7 6.4 6.1 0.143
WVU 14 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.5 0.010

Table G.14. Base 2, Percent Air Voids, Within-Laboratory Average and Variance

Laboratory Sample Sample Sample Average Within-

1 2 3 Laboratory
Variance
District 1 3.9 3.3 3.4 3.5 0.103
District 2 2.8 3.1 3.3 3.1 0.063
District 3 7.1 4.6 7.1 6.3 2.083
District 4 2.4 3.1 2.7 2.7 0.123
District 5 3.9 3.7 3.9 3.8 0.013
District 6 3.8 3.4 3.6 3.6 0.040
District 7 2.6 3.3 2.9 2.9 0.123
District 8 3.4 3.2 3.6 3.4 0.040
District 9 3.3 2.9 3.1 3.1 0.040
District 10 4.2 4.6 3.2 4.0 0.520
Central 11 2.8 3.1 2.2 2.7 0.210
Greer 12 3.2 4.6 3.7 3.8 0.503
WV Paving 13 4.7 3.7 3.5 4.0 0.413
WVU 14 3.7 3.6 3.1 3.5 0.103

113
Table G.15. Wearing 1, Percent Air Voids, Within-Laboratory Average and Variance

Laboratory Sample Sample Sample Average Within-

1 2 3 Laboratory
Variance
District 1
District 2 3.3000 3.0 3.8 3.4 0.163
District 3 4.4000 9.8 10.8 8.3 11.853
District 4 2.9000 3.0 3.1 3.0 0.010
District 5 5.1000 4.9 4.4 4.8 0.130
District 6 4.3000 4.5 4.2 4.3 0.023
District 7 3.0000 3.2 2.7 3.0 0.063
District 8 3.9000 4.3 3.9 4.0 0.053
District 9 4.4000 3.8 3.8 4.0 0.120
District 10 4.8000 4.6 4.9 4.8 0.023
Central 11 3.8000 3.5 3.3 3.5 0.063
Greer 12 3.9000 3.7 3.3 3.6 0.093
WV Paving 13 5.4000 4.7 5.6 5.2 0.223
WVU 14 3.3000 3.9 3.5 3.6 0.093

114
Table G.16. Outlying Percentile for Maximum Theoretical Specific Gravity Specific
Gravity

Laboratory Replicate Gmm Percent

Base Base Wearing 1 Base Base Wearing
1 2 1 2 1
1 2.561 2.516 0.000 58.3 96.7
District 1
2 2.555 2.521 0.000 70.7 61.3
1 2.565 2.525 2.491 50.6 82.9 86.0
District 2
2 2.566 2.524 2.490 52.8 73.9 81.7
1 2.560 2.523 2.485 60.5 63.0 51.1
District 3
2 2.563 2.524 2.484 53.9 73.9 55.9
1 2.560 2.520 2.484 60.5 72.5 55.9
District 4
2 2.560 2.518 2.479 60.5 88.8 84.8
1 2.566 2.530 2.494 52.8 99.4 94.6
District 5
2 2.654 2.530 2.494 100.0 99.4 94.6
1 2.561 2.523 2.484 58.3 63.0 55.9
District 6
2 2.564 2.521 2.485 51.7 61.3 51.1
1 2.561 2.519 2.475 58.3 81.8 95.8
District 7
2 2.548 2.519 2.470 82.6 81.8 99.5
1 2.564 2.524 2.486 51.7 73.9 58.0
District 8
2 2.561 2.525 2.485 58.3 82.9 51.1
1 2.564 2.520 2.484 51.7 72.5 55.9
District 9
2 2.565 2.524 2.485 50.6 73.9 51.1
1 2.560 2.519 2.482 60.5 81.8 69.2
District 10
2 2.559 2.520 2.478 62.6 72.5 88.6
1 2.560 2.521 2.487 60.5 61.3 64.7
Central 11
2 2.563 2.519 2.492 53.9 81.8 89.6
1 2.559 2.523 2.481 62.6 63.0 75.0
Greer 12
2 2.561 2.522 2.482 58.3 50.9 69.2
WV 1 2.566 2.522 2.487 52.8 50.9 64.7
13
Paving 2 2.565 2.519 2.481 50.6 81.8 75.0
1 2.562 2.520 2.492 56.1 72.5 89.6
WVU 14
2 2.560 2.523 2.489 60.5 63.0 76.7

115
Table G.17. Outlying Percentile for Marshall Stability

Laboratory Replicate Gmm Percent

Base Base Wearing Base Base Wearing
1 2 1 1 2 1
1 26300 16400 15600 88.8 88.0 88.8
District 1 2 28100 15400 15000 94.4 76.5 83.2
3 22600 17600 15600 67.0 95.7 88.8
1 20000 15700 13700 54.2 80.5 66.2
District 2 2 22100 14700 13900 63.1 65.8 69.2
3 22800 14300 13100 68.5 58.9 56.6
1 28200 8600 12300 94.7 99.1 56.6
District 3 2 23700 11000 6000 74.9 89.7 99.7
3 24000 14300 4300 76.8 58.9 100.0
1 22400 13600 15200 65.5 53.6 85.2
District 4 2 23200 14400 14000 71.4 60.7 70.7
3 26400 14400 13800 89.2 60.7 67.7
1 11300 10400 11600 97.3 93.8 67.7
District 5 2 11200 12600 11600 97.4 70.6 67.7
3 10900 13500 11300 97.8 55.4 72.1
1 19500 14000 12800 58.3 53.6 51.7
District 6 2 19100 13100 12500 61.5 62.4 53.3
3 24600 15400 13400 80.5 76.5 61.5
1 18300 14600 12500 67.8 64.1 53.3
District 7 2 19900 14100 12400 55.0 55.4 55.0
3 21000 10900 12200 54.2 90.5 58.3
1 13800 12500 11100 92.0 72.2 74.8
District 8 2 14200 12200 11100 90.7 76.5 74.8
3 14700 13300 11600 88.8 58.9 67.7
1 22900 15000 14200 69.3 70.6 73.5
District 9 2 25800 16100 13700 86.7 85.1 66.2
3 26700 15000 15300 90.3 70.6 86.2
1 21400 16000 15400 57.5 84.0 87.1
District 10 2 26000 18700 15200 87.6 98.7 85.2
3 29200 18000 17000 96.6 97.1 96.4
1 20800 13000 12900 52.5 64.1 53.3
Central 2 21300 12600 12200 56.7 70.6 58.3
3 23200 13900 12700 71.4 51.8 50.0
1 14400 11000 12200 90.0 89.7 58.3
Greer 2 16800 10000 11800 78.1 95.7 64.7
3 16800 11400 11600 78.1 86.1 67.7
1 16400 10600 9700 80.5 92.6 89.5
WV Paving 2 17500 12600 10300 73.5 70.6 84.2
3 17600 13000 10400 72.8 64.1 83.2
1 19100 14400 15000 61.5 60.7 83.2
WVU 2 18600 16400 13700 65.5 88.0 66.2
3 18300 15200 13900 67.8 73.7 69.2

116
Table G.18. Outlying Percentile for Marshall Flow

Laboratory Replicate Flow Percent

Base Base Wearing Base Base Wearing
1 2 1 1 2 1
1 15.0 9.0 10.5 50.2 93.1 55.5
District 1 2 15.0 11.5 8.5 50.2 51.9 88.2
3 16.5 12.0 9.0 71.3 63.8 82.2
1 16.0 10.5 9.4 64.7 71.4 76.2
District 2 2 14.2 12.0 10.4 61.5 63.8 57.6
3 11.5 11.0 9.0 90.2 60.2 82.2
1 13.4 8.6 12.4 72.2 95.8 80.3
District 3 2 12.5 8.8 14.8 82.2 94.6 98.2
3 20.5 9.5 12.6 98.0 88.1 83.1
1 15.5 11.5 10.0 57.6 51.9 65.5
District 4 2 17.0 11.5 11.0 77.3 51.9 54.8
3 20.0 12.5 11.5 96.9 74.6 64.9
1 10.5 12.0 10.5 95.2 63.8 55.5
District 5 2 11.5 12.5 11.5 90.2 74.6 64.9
3 11.8 10.5 11.8 88.5 71.4 69.6
1 13.0 10.0 9.5 77.0 80.9 74.6
District 6 2 13.5 13.0 11.5 71.0 83.3 64.9
3 20.0 16.5 13.0 96.9 99.9 87.8
1 13.4 12.5 18.5 72.2 74.6 100.0
District 7 2 15.8 12.5 10.5 61.2 74.6 55.5
3 13.0 11.6 10.0 77.0 54.3 65.5
1 13.0 14.0 9.5 77.0 94.3 74.6
District 8 2 14.0 12.0 9.5 64.3 63.8 74.6
3 11.0 14.0 11.0 93.1 94.3 54.8
1 19.0 10.5 9.5 93.2 71.4 74.6
District 9 2 16.0 10.5 9.5 64.7 71.4 74.6
3 21.5 10.5 10.5 99.2 71.4 55.5
1 15.5 10.0 8.8 57.6 80.9 85.4
District 10 2 14.0 8.8 10.0 64.3 95.0 65.5
3 15.8 9.0 10.0 61.2 93.1 65.5
1 12.0 12.5 10.5 86.6 74.6 55.5
Central 11 2 13.0 12.0 10.0 77.0 63.8 65.5
3 13.0 10.5 10.5 77.0 71.4 55.5
1 15.5 11.5 10.0 57.6 51.9 65.5
Greer 12 2 16.0 11.5 9.5 64.7 51.9 74.6
3 16.5 14.0 8.5 71.3 94.3 88.2
1 15.6 12.0 13.9 59.1 63.8 94.9
WV Paving 13 2 12.8 11.8 12.8 79.2 59.2 85.6
3 19.2 13.2 13.4 94.2 86.2 91.5
1 17.0 11.5 10.0 77.3 51.9 65.5
WVU 14 2 15.5 10.3 9.5 57.6 76.4 74.6
3 14.0 10.3 9.5 64.3 76.4 74.6

117
Table G.19. Outlying Percentile for Bulk Specific Gravity

Gmb Percent
Laboratory Base Base Wearing Base Base Wearing
Replicate 1 2 1 1 2 1
District 1 1 2.451 2.422 2.390 72.2 63.6 56.5
2 2.440 2.435 2.390 50.0 56.2 56.5
3 2.446 2.434 2.500 62.6 54.6 99.7
District 2 1 2.449 2.454 2.410 68.5 81.4 73.7
2 2.457 2.447 2.416 81.8 73.2 78.1
3 2.447 2.442 2.397 64.6 66.5 62.9
District 3 1 2.460 2.344 2.376 85.8 100.0 56.5
2 2.451 2.408 2.242 72.2 81.4 100.0
3 2.451 2.326 2.216 72.2 100.0 100.0
District 4 1 2.453 2.459 2.409 75.7 86.1 73.0
2 2.446 2.441 2.407 62.6 65.1 71.4
3 2.453 2.451 2.404 75.7 78.1 68.9
District 5 1 2.415 2.432 2.366 90.9 51.5 65.5
2 2.408 2.436 2.372 95.6 57.7 60.2
3 2.421 2.432 2.385 84.5 51.5 51.9
District 6 1 2.445 2.426 2.379 60.5 57.7 53.7
2 2.439 2.437 2.373 52.1 59.2 59.3
3 2.434 2.431 2.380 62.6 50.0 52.8
District 7 1 2.439 2.454 2.400 52.1 81.4 65.5
2 2.445 2.435 2.394 60.5 56.2 60.2
3 2.455 2.446 2.405 78.9 72.0 69.8
District 8 1 2.407 2.438 2.389 96.1 60.7 55.6
2 2.395 2.445 2.380 99.2 70.6 52.8
3 2.407 2.435 2.389 96.1 56.2 55.6
District 9 1 2.457 2.438 2.376 81.8 60.7 56.5
2 2.439 2.448 2.390 52.1 74.5 56.5
3 2.469 2.445 2.390 94.0 70.6 56.5
District 10 1 2.451 2.415 2.362 72.2 73.2 68.9
2 2.440 2.405 2.366 50.0 84.3 65.5
3 2.451 2.439 2.359 72.2 62.2 71.4
Central 11 1 2.455 2.450 2.396 78.9 76.9 62.0
2 2.465 2.443 2.403 90.9 67.9 68.1
3 2.465 2.464 2.409 90.9 90.0 73.0
Greer 12 1 2.432 2.442 2.384 66.6 66.5 50.9
2 2.434 2.407 2.390 62.6 82.4 56.5
3 2.435 2.429 2.400 60.5 53.1 65.5
WV 13 1 2.405 2.403 2.349 96.9 86.1 78.8
Paving 2 2.419 2.428 2.367 86.9 54.6 64.7
3 2.401 2.434 2.346 98.1 54.6 80.8
WVU 14 1 2.448 2.429 2.410 66.6 53.1 73.7
2 2.445 2.430 2.394 60.5 51.5 60.2
3 2.443 2.443 2.405 56.4 67.9 69.8

118
Table G.20. Outlying Percentile for Percent Air Voids
Laboratory Replicate Percent Air Voids Percent
Base Base Wearing Base Base Wearing
1 2 1 1 2 1
1 4.2 3.9 74.8 60.6 50.0
District 1 2 4.6 3.3 60.8 62.1 50.0
3 4.4 3.4 68.1 58.4 50.0
1 4.6 2.8 3.3 60.8 78.5 72.8
District 2 2 4.2 3.1 3.0 74.8 69.1 78.6
3 4.6 3.3 3.8 60.8 62.1 61.6
1 4.0 7.1 4.4 80.6 100.0 53.2
District 3 2 4.3 4.6 9.8 71.5 82.7 100.0
3 4.3 7.8 10.8 71.5 100.0 100.0
1 4.2 2.4 2.9 74.8 88.0 80.4
District 4 2 4.5 3.1 3.0 64.5 69.1 78.6
3 4.2 2.7 3.1 74.8 81.2 76.8
1 7.5 3.9 5.1 99.5 60.6 69.8
District 5 2 7.7 3.7 4.9 99.7 53.1 65.3
3 7.2 3.9 4.4 98.9 60.6 53.2
1 4.6 3.8 4.3 60.8 56.9 50.7
District 6 2 4.8 3.4 4.5 53.1 58.4 55.7
3 5.0 3.6 4.2 54.7 50.8 51.7
1 4.5 2.6 3.0 64.5 83.7 78.6
District 7 2 4.3 3.3 3.2 71.5 62.1 74.8
3 3.9 2.9 2.7 83.2 75.6 83.7
1 6.1 3.4 3.9 88.4 58.4 59.1
District 8 2 6.6 3.2 4.3 95.4 65.7 50.7
3 6.1 3.6 3.9 88.4 50.8 59.1
1 4.2 3.3 4.4 74.8 62.1 53.2
District 9 2 4.9 2.9 3.8 50.8 75.6 61.6
3 3.7 3.1 3.8 87.6 69.1 61.6
1 4.3 4.2 4.8 71.5 71.1 63.0
District 10 2 4.7 4.6 4.6 57.0 82.7 58.2
3 4.3 3.2 4.9 71.5 65.7 65.3
1 4.2 2.8 3.8 74.8 78.5 61.6
Central 11 2 3.8 3.1 3.5 85.5 69.1 68.5
3 3.8 2.2 3.3 85.5 91.4 72.8
1 5.0 3.2 3.9 54.7 65.7 59.1
Greer 12 2 4.9 4.6 3.7 50.8 82.7 63.9
3 4.9 3.7 3.3 50.8 53.1 72.8
1 6.3 4.7 5.4 91.8 85.0 76.0
WV Paving 13 2 5.7 3.7 4.7 78.9 53.1 60.6
3 6.4 3.5 5.6 93.2 54.6 79.7
1 4.4 3.7 3.3 68.1 53.1 72.8
WVU 14 2 4.5 3.6 3.9 64.5 50.8 59.1
3 4.6 3.1 3.5 60.8 69.1 68.5

119